I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, and his officials to the meeting.
Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill 2002: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 33 and 34, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"3.-(1) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the establishment day for the purposes of this Act is 1 January 2004.
(b) Section 4(5) shall not come into operation until a resolution is passed under subsection (2).
(2) (a) If Dáil Éireann by resolution so declares, section 4(5), in so far as it relates to Dáil Éireann or a Committee of Dáil Éireann, shall come into operation on such day as may be specified in the resolution.
(b) If Seanad Éireann by resolution so declares, section 4(5), in so far as it relates to Seanad Éireann or a Committee of Seanad Éireann, shall come into operation on such day as may be specified in the resolution.
(c) If Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann by resolution so declare, section 4(5), in so far as it relates to an Oireachtas Committee, shall come into operation on such day as may be specified in the resolution.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister of State provide some clarification? Since 1 January 2004 is to be the establishment date for setting up the commission, does he anticipate that the commission will be in place long before that? Can the commission take decisions on additional services and so on, to be put in place for this commission? For example, there are recommendations on staffing. If, as expected, this Bill is passed before the summer recess and, perhaps, the commission is established by September or October, can it then make proposals on staffing levels in line with the Deloitte & Touche report or whatever? Can it put in place procedures to employ additional staff, or must it wait until the body is formally established on 1 January? Will it be the position that any moves to be made or the employment of any additional staff can take effect only from that date? Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify that.
It is intended to have the commission in place in advance of 1 January 2004 so that it will be ready to go into action as soon as the legislation takes effect. While it will be in a position to put in place procedures, it is my understanding that, officially, it will not have statutory power until the establishment day. However, I anticipate that recommendations from the commission will be considered in advance of that date.
If I understand the Minister of State's reply correctly, no additional staff can be employed and the Deloitte & Touche report cannot be implemented until, at least, into January 2004. However, can the commission reach agreement in principle that it will follow a certain route and put procedures in place for recruitment and so on? I wish to raise a further point which may be of a technical nature. It is proposed that the Bill will have been passed before the summer recess. I understand the approval of the Houses will be required for the appointment of people to the commission. Is it expected that those appointments will be made prior to the resumption, which, I assume, will be in early October? Is that leaving matters very late, or is it expected that the nominees for the commission will be put in place before the summer recess?
The Deputy has made a valid point, which I take on board. A committee could be put in place during the recess if necessary. However, I understand the intention is that it will be done immediately after the recess. Obviously, the appointment of people to the commission is a big decision and, no doubt, the timing is a factor. I am not 100% sure of the position at this stage.
Perhaps the Minister of State will have the position clarified for Report Stage.
Alternatively, we could go into private session and perhaps the officials can clarify the position.
We might discuss this specific aspect when we come to the membership of the commission, allowing the Minister of State an opportunity to collect some thoughts in the meantime. This is a very important issue for all of us and we are very anxious that the commission will be successful.
The situation will depend on how quickly the Bill goes through the Houses, in advance of the recess. If it is delayed until the very end of this session, there will not be time. However, if there is time in advance of the recess, advantage will be taken of that.
Section 8, on membership of the commission, is the substantive element in the establishment of the commission. That is the section on which I intend to focus and I will withhold comment until we reach that section.
We can deal with my question when we come to section 8. Now that the Minister of State is aware of the type of queries arising, perhaps he will arrange to have a briefing note prepared for the committee? What will be the status of appointments which may be made at a stage when the commission is not established? Can people be appointed to it prior to 1 January, or will a committee of the Houses be appointed for an interim period?
An amendment can make appropriate provision to that effect in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Chairman: Amendments Nos. 2 and 11 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. I refer to the grouping schedule of amendments circulated to Members by the Bills Office. Is it agreed we will operate on the basis of that schedule? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 1, to delete "are-" and substitute the following:
"shall be to provide for the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas and to administer and manage the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Commission shall perform the following:”.
Section 4 sets out the functions to be performed by the commission. This involves the commission taking over certain functions in relation to staff and management of the office from the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach and in relation to staffing and expenditure from the Minister for Finance. In broad terms, the functions of the commission shall be to provide for the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas and to administer and manage the office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In general, the commission is to manage the funding, staffing and organisation of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In specific terms, the commission will be empowered to oversee the ongoing expenditure of the office of the Houses of the Oireachtas; to make provision for services and facilities for administration and management; to pay salaries to Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann and the European Parliament, including payment of allowances, expenses and certain grants and grant-in-aid; to provide secretarial facilities to be used in connection with parliamentary duties, including personnel and equipment to assist with correspondence, records, inquiries, appointments and documents and to provide for legal advice to be made available to Members and committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of the business of the Houses.
Currently, when legal proceedings are being taken on foot of actions by either House or by Oireachtas committees, it is necessary to name individual members of such committees in any legal proceedings. This provision makes this unnecessary and allows the commission to be a party to such proceedings where the authority to do is provided by either or both Houses. The commission will also be empowered to prepare and publish an annual report for the office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to prepare and publish an annual estimate and to keep accounts. The revised wording simply illustrates the provisions I have outlined.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Burton and No. 4 is related. They may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to take steps to ensure that an equitable balance is maintained between the rights of members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are members of Government parties and those who are in opposition,”.
These two amendments really cut to the philosophy of the Bill and what is to happen subsequently. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendments, which are very important as far as Opposition Members are concerned. Over recent years, the status of the Houses of the Oireachtas, particularly the Dáil, has fallen in public esteem. The correct balance which should exist between the Executive and the Houses of the Oireachtas has gone much too far in the direction of the Executive. The development of the commission is an opportunity, in the first place, for the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas to restate their independence and the importance of their function as Members of the national parliament. It would also give Members more independence vis-à-vis the Executive. Members of Parliament should not be dependent on the Executive. It should be possible for Members to put forward a reasoned case for facilities. This applies particularly to members of the Opposition, who have a constitutional duty to hold the Government to account. The performance of that constitutional duty is extremely difficult when one is completely under resourced.
As finance spokespersons, Deputies Paul McGrath, Richard Bruton, Ó Caoláin and I are expected to mark the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance. We have a duty to hold them to account, but we are given one secretary to help us to do so. I am sure the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, probably have up to 30 staff between them in their private and ministerial offices. I am not saying the Ministers in question recruited these officials, as six or seven people were probably working in the ministerial offices on the day they walked in. I do not deny that the Ministers need resources, but the Opposition needs assistance if it is to perform its constitutional duty. The Deloitte & Touche report identified the resources we need.
The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to achieve an equitable balance between the rights of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are members of the Government parties and those Members who are in Opposition. This measure will enable the Opposition to meet its constitutional responsibilities. It is important that this is set out in light of the presidential style of government that is found nowadays, which includes advisers and spin doctors. There is a tendency for members of the Government, never mind Members of Parliament and members of the Opposition, to be considered as almost irrelevant to the main plot, which is looking after the head or heads of the Government. Modern media management is designed in such a manner the status of the Dáil in the esteem of the public has fallen consistently as a result of this and other developments.
Amendment No. 4 calls for the Commission to be required "to consult broadly with members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are members of Government parties and those who are in opposition in the performance of its functions". One has to say that the role of a backbencher, in whatever Government is in power, can be very difficult.
We have no option other than to suspend for about 20 minutes because there is a vote in the Dáil.
Sitting suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.
I shall conclude my remarks on amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The Commission will comprise the Chairmen of each House, who are, obviously, nominees of the Government of the day; another member will be appointed directly by the Minister for Finance and it is reasonable to assume that person more than likely will be also a member of a Government party. There will also be seven ordinary members. We have to discuss how they will be selected. Again, that will probably be proportionate to party strength in the Houses, which could mean that as many as seven members of the Commission will be from the Government and only three from the Opposition. That is a fundamental mistake in terms of the independence and status of the Houses. It is only with a vigorous independent Commission that the interests of Members will be looked after and that one will find the affairs of the Houses being addressed in a way that will seek to enhance Parliament rather than serve the narrow advantage of the Government of the day, which may just want to order the business and, in a certain sense, not raise the esteem of Parliament. The focus in modern government will be on a presidential style of government where in some cases the Ministers hardly get a look-in.
To do this carefully, we must bear in mind that there are many Members of this House, from all parties, who have given long service to committees such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann. There are also many Members who have formerly served as Ministers or Ministers of State and who, in an issue like this, would seek to enhance the role of Parliament as a whole. We must not forget either that there are former leaders of parties and former Taoisigh in the House. In the Houses of Parliament in the UK, for instance, people who are former office holders at a certain level are made privy councillors. The purpose of these amendments is to make sure there is an equitable balance between the rights of those Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are members of Government parties and those who are in Opposition.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to take that a step further. We have distinguished backbenchers in all parties and the balance as set out so far is inadequate. I accept that we will have an opportunity to discuss this later in section 8. The Government and Members of the House will come to regret not using this opportunity to redress the balance between the Executive and the Parliament, in favour of Parliament and the esteem of Parliament as the voice of the people.
I support both of Deputy Burton's amendments. The critical point here is to ensure an equitable balance between those Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who represent the Government and those of us on the Opposition benches. There is no question but that there is a serious imbalance. Members of Government have access to the advice, support and research facilities provided by legions of civil servants while, on the other hand, Opposition Members are reliant, in the main, on their own energies and talents with, perhaps, the back-up of one parliamentary assistant. This is wholly inadequate and does not allow for a level playing pitch, a fair field of engagement - far from it.
This manifests itself in many different ways. Members will perhaps be familiar with the recent results of the review of space allocation on this campus carried out by the Houses in relation to each party. The Opposition parties, particularly the smaller parties, are seriously disadvantaged in terms of square metres of space. We have small, inadequate offices, often catering to more than the numbers they were designed to accommodate; people are unable, even if they have the external resources, to bring in additional personnel to augment the existing overburdened working teams in the small party groupings. I have no doubt that arguments could also be made by the other Opposition Deputies, but I will leave it to them to make their own judgment calls.
Another major deficiency is exemplified thus: the Chairman's party leader and the Tánaiste held a press conference last week reflecting on an 80-page document they described as a progress report. They had the opportunity of using the facilities of Government buildings to accommodate the press. If the leader of the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party, or I, Deputy Sargent or Deputy Higgins wanted to respond to that issue and meet the press, we were obliged to go out to the plinth. We have to go out there in all weathers: for 300 of the 365 days every year it seems to rain. The press are obliged to stand outside in all types of weather. We have no press facilities. Buswell's Hotel has become the unofficial press venue for the Opposition Deputies in this House. We do not even have the facilities the Government parties enjoy in terms of the services offered by this House. That is a decided disadvantage.
It is disgraceful that facilities to accommodate the press were not designed and incorporated into this extension when it was built in 2000. This is not only for the elected Members but for the press themselves, for whom there is clearly scant respect - they are banished out to the plinth unless they have a by-your-leave from the Superintendent or the Captain of the Guard, who should not have to involve themselves in such matters. There should be proper facilities, managed by a designated officer, in terms of booking time and having press conferences and so on. On a whole legion of issues there is a major discrepancy between the reality of life in the Houses for Government Members and for those of us who are striving to offer opposition against all the odds.
I do not want to labour the issue - I support the amendments and I hope the Minister of State will accept them. Deputy Parlon is well used not only to the legions of civil servants around him but also to the legions at Bluebell and elsewhere in his career. I am sure he will accept nothing less, and well done to him. The rest of us have to strive with much less support in making our analyses and contributions. I hope he will take all this on board and champion the rights of all elected Members. Perhaps the press will even note him favourably for giving them more than an umbrella on occasion.
Deputy Ó Caoláin has made a case for the new commission. That is precisely why we are here today: so that the Members will have the authority to make decisions we cannot currently make. Everything he said pointed to the deficiencies of the current arrangement and the new commission is being set up to address all these issues.
In the interest of moving business along, many changes that need to be made to operational activities in Leinster House will be a matter to be addressed by the incoming commission. We want to get this commission set up. Many of the comments will be more relevant to the incoming commission than to the Minister or the Department of Finance, who will not be involved in the commission once it is set up.
I too agree with the sentiments of the two amendments put forward by Deputy Burton. Bearing in mind what the Chairman has just said, he is making a very strong case for the inclusion of these amendments in the Bill. Although he rightly referred to the fact that the details as referred to by Deputy Ó Caoláin may well be for the commission to consider, if we insert into the Bill the concepts enshrined in these amendments we are obliging the commission to consider the things which we all recognise need to be changed. Without a clear statement in the legislation saying this, there is a possibility that these problems will not be addressed or will not be addressed equitably. This is why I support the amendments.
Let us consider the make-up of the commission. It will be a ten-person body, of whom probably seven will be Government nominees in one form or another. That will leave the commission strongly in support of the Government. If we are to have a commission that is equitable and fair and working for all Members, it should at the very minimum be balanced. One can compare it to the European Commission. When somebody is appointed to the European Commission he leaves behind his national baggage and acts for the betterment of the whole community. I hope that having balance within the committee will result in people acting independently in the best interests of the House and of democracy.
The task faced by Opposition spokespersons, in particular, is impossible. For example, tomorrow morning the justice committee will review the Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which run to more than €1 billion. Generally, there is a briefing session of ten or 15 minutes from civil servants on the key points, and then off we go. The Minister of the day - although the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would claim that he does not need any adviser - is usually surrounded by a team of advisers, who will be there to give him the minute detail of everything that is in the Estimates, and rightly so. However, the Opposition spokespersons have absolutely nothing - they are on a wing and a prayer. One hopes one will be able to scrutinise the issues properly, which is important from the point of view of public accountability and the use of taxpayers' money. Opposition spokespersons, in the main, are relying on friends to advise them, help them and spend time going through material and pulling out points. It is not right in this day and age that this should be the case.
For these reasons, I would like to see the amendments, or something similar in tone, being accepted. Maybe they are not perfect in terms of wording, but I am sure Deputy Burton would not mind if they were amended as long as the concept remained. If the concept is there the commission will be obliged to follow through. Without it, we may go down the road of having more of the same. This Parliament needs to be reformed. We need to do a great deal to make it more accountable to the taxpayer, and unless we do that we will find ourselves, down the road, isolated from the general public, who have a cynical view of much of what happens in here at the moment. We have to take these things back to centre stage.
I will comment first on some of Deputy Burton's remarks. The Deputy is inclined to understate the ability of the Opposition spokespersons to mark their Ministers. She is overstating the back-up that individual Ministers have. I can speak only for myself, but the back-up I have is not in the same league as that of Deputy Burton.
There are many staff with the Minister now.
Perhaps the Deputy is thinking back to when she was in ministerial office in the past. Maybe things have changed a little since then. The scenario that she mentions - seven members of Government on the commission with just three Opposition members - is the worst-case scenario. I doubt if she would go in with a defeatist attitude. Obviously the ratio will be dictated by democracy and by recent elections. A friend of mine always quotes someone who said that the greatest weakness of democracy is that it counts heads rather than what is in them. I hope the quality of the people on the commission will be important too.
The Ceann Comhairle must be a member. That decision has been taken. He or she does not have to be a member of the Government. The current Ceann Comhairle is a member, but that has not always been the case in the past. The same holds for the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. I have no idea who the Minister for Finance will nominate. It could be Deputy Burton.
Presumably the Minister for Finance will be acutely conscious that there should be a gender balance on the commission as well.
That is another factor which is not dealt with. Deputy McGrath said he would expect all members to operate in the best interests of the Houses, and I expect that to be the case. Deputy Ó Caoláin mentioned the difficulty with small parties and, as a member of a small party that has grown since the last general election, is aware that accommodation is a problem. The same is true for a small party in government. I hope that, as the chairman said, the commission will be in a better position to deal with those problems when the issues are being articulated.
It is not the role of the Minister for Finance or the Government to delve into this matter, the passing of this legislation or the establishment of the commission. It will no longer be up to the Minister for Finance to make recommendations on how resources should be utilised. The objective of the Minister for Finance is to ensure that sufficient resources are in place for the commission to carry out its functions as set out in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to give the commission an independence from the Minister for Finance and the Government. It will be a matter for the commission to ensure an equitable balance is maintained. For those reasons, I cannot recommend either of the amendments.
I hope I detected a note of sympathy from the Minister of State towards the proposals that we put forward. Regarding his comments on the nominee of the Minister for Finance, it would be good if the message went from this committee to the Minister for Finance - and it will be the current Minister who will set the precedent - that the nominee should be a member of the Opposition. It could be someone who has had a senior position or long service on one of the relevant committees, or perhaps someone who has formerly served in Government.
The concept of this commission is that once appointed, it should not necessarily be a Government creature. Its job should be to defend the interests of all the Members of the Houses. To do that properly and to gain status for itself, it needs an equitable balance between Government and Opposition. The Minister is making a mistake in not looking at this issue. Perhaps he will be more forthcoming about it on Report Stage. It is in the interests of everybody that this works well.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to consult broadly with members of the Houses of the Oireachtas who are members of Government parties and those who are in opposition in the performance of its functions,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to report the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas and Oireachtas committees and to make such reports available by way of publications and on the internet,”.
I hope the Minister will not have any difficulty in accepting this amendment, because it is basically to make the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas committees available by way of publications and on the Internet. In terms of any modern institution or company running its business, communications are essential. One of the reasons the Houses of the Oireachtas lack esteem is the failure to communicate what exactly Deputies and Senators do, and what happens in the Houses. It is a very simple matter to make the publications available and to make them available on the Internet. Not only could Irish citizens then access them on the Internet, but people in America, many of whom are interested in Irish affairs, could also access them. This would also benefit Irish emigrants. Many other parliaments use the Internet in this way. Members of both Houses who have websites know they get several hundred hits weekly, and if a member is mentioned in the newspapers, he or she can get several hundred website hits in one day. For many younger people the Internet is an easy and fast way of accessing information. If we want to encourage people's interest in politics as well as a sense of participation, this is important.
This issue also relates to how the press is treated in the Houses. They are, one might say, barely tolerated guests. Rather like the role of the Opposition, the role of the press is to hold all the Members of the Houses to public account. From time to time, the press will give both Government and Opposition a rough ride. That is its job, yet the press is barely tolerated in the Houses. The situation described by Deputy Ó Caoláin describing what happens on the plinth is appalling. It is even worse for a woman, standing out there in the rain and the wind, trying to speak about something serious, with one's hair taking off - though I know that some male Members of the Houses are also challenged in relation to their tonsorial arrangements when the wind blows. A woman Member of the Opposition trying to talk to a reporter in the rain and the wind has great difficulty in looking dignified. Reporters too are hunched on the plinth against the rain and wind. Members of Government have palatial accommodation in which to address the press, in Government Buildings and elsewhere. It is absurd that the press, which has such an important relationship to the Houses - even if it is often strained - should be treated for the most part like unwanted or barely tolerated guests.
I support the amendment tabled by Deputy Burton. She raises a very important point in terms of modern communications, and bringing material quickly on stream on the Internet and so on. We have an excellent internal communications system, on which I compliment the staff of the Houses. Through this system we can access speeches made only an hour previously. It provides ready availability to material and is extremely well organised, but we need to broaden the system to include better access. That should be looked at. The various Departments too have excellent websites, and the kind of material and information on all sorts of things, available by accessing these sites, is absolutely excellent. My secretary in Mullingar is brilliant at finding responses to constituents' queries by simply looking on the Internet. She even finds application forms for the most unlikely things - social welfare, passports or whatever. Everything is there to be pulled in and it is generally extremely well done. There is a need for this amendment so that the Oireachtas Commission will have the expertise and the wherewithal to bring this on stream very quickly so it can be readily accessed. This will allow the House to be more user-friendly and more public-friendly and will bring democracy back to the centre of our community.
I also support this amendment. By coincidence, on Monday of this week a constituent approached me about the issue of accessing the Dáil debates through the Internet. This is something that certainly should be facilitated. I accept that under the current system the transcript may not accurately reflect the Member's contribution during the day or two before the blacks are edited - nuances may be lost in terms of the intent of the speaker and the recording by members of that section of the Houses' staff. The transcripts should be released within a reasonable timeframe, 24 to 48 hours.
The Deputies who raised the issue of the famous press conference in Government buildings should note that providing good shelter and accommodation does not always result in a good report.
That is true.
It depends on the material one has.
Standing out on the plinth, even in the rain, can be just the same. It depends on the story——
It depends on what one is trying to sell.
For some Deputies who are follically challenged, even slightly follically challenged, it is an advantage to be out there. I am sure the commission could make a recommendation to the Office of Public Works about covering the plinth.
As I understand it, all of the Dáil debates are being put on the Internet or have been put there already. It is an operational matter which is not really for this Bill to deal with but for the commission. I assume that would be a unanimous decision of the commission, because we have the technology and the personnel, so it should happen.
It took years to have the proceedings of the Dáil televised. This is only a statement of exhortation to make provision for that; it does not impose anything on the staff. I recall the debate about broadcasting and about how people would be recorded in terms of their movements and so on. One of the reasons Dáil broadcasting can be so boring at times - it is shown in the graveyard slot at 12 o'clock at night - is that people were extremely conservative in their approach. The Internet is a fact of life for younger people. I am talking about written publication, not reality TV and so on, although that would make it very interesting - perhaps we should put a proposal to RTE for a reality TV series about the Dáil.
They are doing well in a prison in Australia, I hear.
It would be called "In the Houses" and would include days on the plinth in the rain.
Is this amendment being pressed?
Yes. I hope the Minister will be more forthcoming than he has been. It is not at all threatening to the Government - it is based only on logic and will bring us up to date without having to have a major report commissioned and so on. As Deputy McGrath said, all of the work is already done excellently by the staff.
Legally, it is a matter for each of the Houses. As I said, the Dáil reports are currently being put on the Internet. There will be the opportunity for the commission to publish a strategy document in which I am sure something like this will be included. I see this happening, but it is a day to day matter for the new commission and I expect it will be put in place.
Will the Minister make a full statement on that on Report Stage?
Yes.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order; I gave the Deputy a letter to that effect.
This amendment arose out of the recommendations of the committee of the Houses that dealt with the DIRT inquiry, which was dropped by the Government after the Abbeylara case. The context of this was the principle rather than the finance involved. In terms of making the work of the Houses effective, the original DIRT committee recommendation was a good one and a system of parliamentary inspectors ought to be reinstated. I accept the Chair's ruling, however.
Perhaps the Deputy could find a form of wording for Report Stage so that the amendment would not be ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to produce handbooks and information relevant to the business of the Houses of the Oireachtas for members of the Houses of the Oireachtas,”.
This is to make sure the commission has a clear legal and statutory mandate to do this. The purpose is to keep members of the public, who are paying for all of this, informed of what goes on in the Houses. Members know that when visitors have come to the House in recent years a range of material has been prepared. Many of the visitors are very taken with this and it substantially enhances their understanding of what parliament does. Many of the people who come to visit leave quite impressed. One of the functions of the commission should be to give information about the Houses of the Oireachtas. I hope the Government finds this non-contentious.
Like before, this is a management decision for the commission whose detail does not need to appear in the Bill, but it is a good idea whether we accept it at this stage or let the commission put it in place. I do not have a problem accepting this amendment.
My main concern about the membership of the commission is, as I said, the equitable balance, but I also have other concerns. There are some very senior people on that commission - the Ceann Comhairle and so on - and they——
Is the Deputy talking about an age barrier?
No, I am talking about seniority, rank and office. People such as these may have a much more conservative view. Often, rather than acceding to Members' requests, the Ceann Comhairle refuses them. I would not like to see this happen on the commission. The commission should be a positive effort on behalf of all the Members of the Houses: that is our aim. If this is in the commission's mandate - this Bill - we will not have a situation whereby a cheeky member of the commission keeps asking why we cannot do this or that. We want to go forward agreeing that this is what we do.
I support the spirit of this amendment. Perhaps Mr. Parlon would make a statement about this on Report Stage, because when the commission gets up and running it will look back to see what kind of commitments were given by Ministers and so on during the passage of the Bill. We should try to move the process forward. What the commission will take on is a huge role. We are talking about expenditure of €100 million per year to run the Houses and so on. In recent times, through our PR office and through the efforts of Verona Ní Bhroinn, Tom Dwan, and such people, we produced some fine material on the Houses and how they work. It is very acceptable, but we need to expand it and update it. The video, even though it was made relatively recently, is out of date and needs to be updated and modernised. There is an ever-increasing demand from the public, and politics is on the curriculum at junior certificate level. We now visit schools and speak to schoolchildren who also visit the Houses. We need to be user-friendly in this regard.
Deputy Burton is correct in saying that people generally leave the Houses with a positive feeling, but not enough people visit and leave with that feeling. We want to broaden access, and the general statement of intent is important in ensuring that significant amounts of information and material are available and that the commission examines this. Perhaps the Minister of State would make a statement on Report Stage outlining his intent in this regard and to the effect that the ongoing good work will continue. That might satisfy us at this stage.
We will take that on board. I agree with the Deputy's sentiments. It is an issue of whether it is tied into the Bill. The commission will be busy and have an onerous task. It will be the busiest and most onerous committee of which people can be members because of its responsibilities. Regardless of whether the members of the commission would appreciate their business being set down in the Bill or would like the option to decide for themselves, I agree with the Deputy's sentiments and, if Members wish me to refer to this on Report Stage, I do not have a difficulty doing so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8, 29, 30, 63 and 64 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to develop and publish following wide consultation with members of the Houses of the Oireachtas a mission statement setting forth its values and aims,”.
This amendment is self-explanatory. It asks that the commission be given a remit to prepare a mission statement setting forth its values and aims. Deputy Finneran spoke yesterday at some length about the issue of the strategic management initiative. The SMI, which was adopted and initiated by Mr. Albert Reynolds when he was Taoiseach, had at its heart the requirement of public bodies and organisations to prepare mission statements to set out their aims, objectives, services, standard of services and the clientele, public, customers and so on with which they dealt.
The reason for this in modern management practice, and it emanates from the United States, is to try to get a focus on an organisation's core aims and to have a debate within the organisation about its functions and purpose. Schools, boards of management and many different types of organisations have done this in the follow-on from SMI. I know some would say it is a bit hackneyed, but it is a primary mechanism of getting people to focus on what they do, why and for whom they do it, and to look at the strengths, weaknesses and so on of an organisation.
It is important that this be done again bearing in mind that we agree that the Houses of the Oireachtas are not as well understood and esteemed as they might be by the public, are critical to our democracy and that we could substantially improve the services of the Houses for ourselves and the public we serve.
I refer particularly to the legacy of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds. He brought his significant practical business experience to bear on Government. I am critical of the direction the strategic management initiative has taken in many respects, but I always supported Albert Reynolds's initial ideas in this regard because it was the right thing for the public service at the time. The Houses of the Oireachtas has never subjected itself to this scrutiny. I commend this amendment in a non-partisan way and ask the Government to take it on board in a positive way.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are in my name and that of Deputy Bruton, and amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are in name of the Minister of State. They set out what the commission should do and how it should do it. Our amendments cite the need for a strategic document indicating the commission's intent and that, as soon as possible after appointment, it will set out documents indicating what it intends to do and how it will do its work. These documents would be discussed within the Houses of the Oireachtas and in public so that policy could be formulated based on input from these areas. In other words, it would not be the case that the commission did not discuss its dealings with anyone and did its own thing.
Deputy Burton made a great deal of sense when she referred to senior people being members of the commission and so on. On examining the membership of the commission, a number are already up to their tonsils in work. The Ceann Comhairle has enough on his plate to try to keep business going, address difficulties that arise in different areas and so on. It is very difficult to keep an eye on that while at the same time having the initiative and enthusiasm to initiate reform and bring on board all that we refer to. It will be some job to bring that along at the same time.
We are saying that, if these requirements are built into the legislation, at least the obligation will be in place and the commission will have to do something about it. The commission will be the most important body within the Legislature and its success rate will depend on how well it does its job and manages to streamline and re-organise the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Unless people who are members have the time and energy to devote to what needs to be done, that success will not happen.
Regarding the position of Secretary General which will be filled in the same way as a Secretary General in any Department, is it envisaged that he or she will automatically be Clerk of the Dáil or that he or she will be separate from the Clerk? Again, in the context of people being busy and having time and energy to devote to the commission, we need someone as Secretary General who is not burdened with significant amounts of routine work that he or she must do and which is onerous enough. We need someone who has the enthusiasm to drive change forward and so on.
Our amendments seek the regular publication by the commission of strategic plans which will involve significant consultation and involvement from everyone, be they in Government or Opposition, in large or small parties. Unless that happens, we will not achieve the improvements needed. I support Deputy Burton's amendment. Ours are related and state the same purpose in a different way. I would like to hear the Minister of State's response. His amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are related to a certain extent and perhaps embody some of what we seek to achieve. I look forward to his response.
I do not disagree with the intent of Deputy Burton. It is followed to some extent by other amendments in the name of Deputy McGrath. It is very important to have a strategic plan and that this aspect is firmly established and written into the duties of the commission. That guarantee is included in the Minister's amendment No. 64 which clearly states that within six months of the establishment of the commission a strategic plan for the following three years must be adopted. It is important to know exactly what duties and responsibilities exist in relation to the strategic plan. I believe in the concept of a mission statement and perhaps it is included in amendment No. 64.
We referred earlier to facilities for the press and interviews held outside the House. Some women might like the windswept look or whatever. I agree that there should be some type of facility where people could be interviewed in a proper way without being totally at the mercy of the elements. That makes common sense and the sooner such facilities are in place the better. We owe that not just to ourselves but to the press.
I am very keen on the concept of the mission statement and the strategic plan. I hope it will be possible as a result of amendment No. 64 and I await what the Minister has to say on the matter.
On Deputy Burton's proposal, I have tabled amendments Nos. 40, 45 and 49 to section 8. These will deal with the make-up of the commission and the arguments I pose that it should not be confined to representatives of the elected Members of both Houses. It should take on board the valuable and important contribution of other staff and employees within the Houses, without whose input we simply could not function. I speak of the two colleagues beside the Chair as an example of that. That consultation should go beyond just the Members, as the amendment proposes. It should also take on board the important input of representatives of other staff and employees in these Houses. After all, many of them have been here longer than any of us and will have their own special experience and insight to offer. In pre-empting a favourable reaction to my amendments later, I would like to point up that that amendment should have a wider application than just the elected Members of both Houses.
On amendment No. 30, proposed by Deputy McGrath and his colleague, Deputy Bruton, I am prompted to highlight an area that causes me concern. I am not concerned about the amendments as tabled. However, amendment 30, paragraph 5 (1)(c), refers to the most appropriate means for bringing knowledge and experience from outside the House to bear, on matters where the Oireachtas intends to introduce new legislative provisions. We had a recent example of the private Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (Charters Amendment) Bill, which is a very different procedure in terms of the passage of legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Unlike the quip from the Government benches when I raised concerns about the methodology of assessing the merits or otherwise of the legislation last week, it has nothing to do with the fact that it has the prefix “Royal” in the title. It does not cause me concern. The reality is that we need to focus on the methodology and all that entails. I would like to use the opportunity to point that up.
Uniquely in this situation, there are amendments tabled by sponsors who are not Members of the Houses. No other such facilitation exists. The section to which Deputy McGrath is proposing his amendment is the appropriate section to make this observation. The only amendments that can be tabled during the normal passage of legislation through the Houses can only be in the names of either Members of the Seanad or the Dáil. There is within the arrangements provided for private Bills an opportunity for amendments tabled by people who are not elected, not accountable and are clearly motivated only out of their direct and selfish interest in either their personal or professional interests, needs, ambitions or whatever. This is something that needs to be addressed. It is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. The whole issue of private Bills highlighted by the RCSI Bill's passage needs to be addressed. I am sign-posting it now because I believe it is appropriate while it is fresh in people's minds. The Bill has not yet concluded its passage. However, as it is current, people will appreciate that there is something unusual, strange and alien to the normal daily practice of the passage of legislation. I am urging that this element is addressed. I would take this view whether it was the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland or the Republican College of Surgeons in Ireland, so the remarks made were utterly and absolutely ridiculous and irrelevant. The importance is the whole procedure. There should not be such a facilitation in terms of private passage and with such restrictive——
(Interruptions).
I will bless myself if I have to be under their care after all I have had to say. I am wishing for a long and healthy life and no dependence on a consultant for a long time to come. Perhaps they will then have forgotten all I have had to say. The truth is that this is something we need to address. All legislation should go through in an absolutely open and transparent fashion which affords all Members, not just an appointed small group of six, the opportunity to engage on Second Stage, Committee Stage if they wish, and Report and Final Stages. There should not be a particular sectioned off area of legislation for specific purposes. It should all be treated exactly the same, therefore, there is a need to address such anomalies in the legislative arrangements in this House. I hope the commission will take that matter on board.
Perhaps Deputy McGrath and Deputy Bruton's amendment No. 30, paragraph 5(1)(c), will address this aspect in the wider context.
The functions of civil servants in the office are not reflected in the Bill as published. Since the heads were circulated, the Public Service Management Act, which permits such assignments, has been applied to that office under the procedures in the Act. Following a memorandum to Government, a Government Order was made in January 2002 designating the Clerk of the Dáil as head of the office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. A similar provision in regard to assignments to members by the commission was found to be inappropriate and has also been dropped.
Does amendment No. 61 in the name of the Minister not direct that the Clerk of the Dáil is to be the Secretary General?
That is history. I will now speak about the current situation. Since the publication of the Bill and following discussions and consultation with the office of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the office of the Attorney General, it was decided to apply the Public Service Management Act 1997 by including in the Bill a single charter suitably amended to reflect the constitutional, constituent and independent status of the commission. Consequently, a new section has been inserted detailing the functions of the Secretary General and adapting the phrasing of the Public Service Management Act 1997 to the circumstances of the commission in its role as a constitutionally independent office. This averts the need to repeat each section of the Public Service Management Act in order to amend it in line with the commission.
With reference to amendment No. 30 which Deputy Paul McGrath raised, the Bill as published does not detail the functions of the Secretary General under the Public Service Management Act 1997. One of these functions is the preparation and publication of strategy statements. This matter will be dealt with in an amendment. I share Deputy Burton's views——
Will the Minister of State supply us with a copy of that statement? It is a very technical statement and I could not follow it. I have not been involved with this Bill, no more than the Minister of State.
I read amendment No. 64. My amendment is about the mission statement which is different to the strategic plan. The Minister has made provision for a strategic plan. A mission statement, as we envisage it, is a bit different.
On a point of order, I suggest the mission statement be circulated to all members.
One of the purposes of the mission statement - which is different to the strategic plan and which partly addresses the point made by Deputy Ó Caoláin - is to identify the stake holders in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The stake holders include the public, voters and citizens; business, industry and lobby groups; NGOs, civil society. I argue that the press and the media are also stake holders because in a free democracy they communicate what happens here. Obviously the elected Members are also stake holders and the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Other people may have longer lists. In most parliaments such as the European Parliament, the American Houses of Congress and the British House of Commons, the role of the lobbyist and public affairs consultant is significant and it has grown very large in this country in the past ten years. There are statements issued on a daily basis about people leaving their work in government to set up as public affairs consultants.
The mission statement to which I refer is the Houses of the Oireachtas consulting the Houses and deciding how they relate and do their job properly. It is rather different to the strategic plan which I am delighted to see provided. A mission statement is a different thing at an earlier stage. One of the reasons Mr. Albert Reynolds was so keen on the mission statement as part of the strategic management initiative was to identify who are we doing this for, why are we doing it and who are our stake holders. The Houses of the Oireachtas should adopt that approach because then we might allow the journalists in out of the rain.
Amendment No. 64 proposed by the Minister is quite comprehensive and covers many of the aspects we have mentioned. There are a few additional items that need to be included. Our amendment No. 30 and the part referred to in particular by Deputy Ó Caoláin is worthy of note. In many cases, there is not an appropriate mechanism whereby we can bring in outside experts to talk to us about legislation. The committee procedure has improved that a little, whereby all sorts of interest groups are invited to appear before committees. Twenty-five separate groups came to talk to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not know if in the case of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland there was any committee input and whether people came in to talk to the committee on that matter. It should be within the remit of the chief executive to examine it.
The Minister's amendment puts a specific responsibility on the Secretary General to prepare a strategic plan and to put it to the commission. The commission can subsequently amend it but there is no reference in the amendment to the commission debating it and including it in the wider debate within the Houses of the Oireachtas and within other interest groups. It is important that should be done. The Minister of State will probably say the responsibilities of the Secretary General are being set out and it will be the responsibility of the commission to discuss with the wider Oireachtas or other interest groups if needs be. Should there be an indication somewhere that the widest consultation is desirable? Perhaps the Minister will find an appropriate place for its inclusion rather than the commission debating with itself and producing this thing which would cause a furore. It would lose face before the rest of the Houses of the Oireachtas and would not be seen to be administering what is right for the Houses.
We will be allowed only one shot at this. We will not see amendments to the Bill in our lifetime and it is important that we do the right thing. If it is not appropriate within this amendment, will the Minister find an appropriate place to include the need for discussion? Will the Minister incorporate somewhere aspects of our amendment No. 30 that are important? The review of the conduct of investigations on matters of public interest is very important. We need to move that forward. We need a statement of intent in the legislation. If there is no statement of intent, it will not happen. The most appropriate means for debating and assessing the budgetary framework and the expenditure of Ministers is before financial decisions are made in these matters. Everyone of us is involved and the Minister of State will be before this committee next week talking about expenditure for the Office of Public Works. It will probably take about half an hour to outline expenditure of close to €1 billion and that is not appropriate. That amount of public expenditure should be not be glossed over in that fashion. The Minister of State may say I am impinging on the Comptroller and Auditor General's responsibility to examine State companies.
From the point of view of taxpayers, as shareholders in State companies, we need to ensure there is public accountability as to how their business is transacted, in what areas they are involved and so on. There should be a statement of intent in this Bill to ensure that happens. If the Minister of State cannot accept any of the amendments at this stage, perhaps he will undertake that, before Report Stage, he will try to incorporate many of the sentiments expressed in this debate.
There is no prohibition on discussion with regard to the strategy document. All Members have their client groups. In my previous existence, to which Deputy Ó Caoláin referred, the organisation in which I was involved had an input to Department of Agriculture and Food strategies, which took place well in advance. I am not sure it is necessary or advisable to spell out every line of the commission's responsibilities in the Bill. However, all necessary discussion will take place in advance of the strategy document. There is certainly no prohibition in the Bill in that regard.
Our concern - given the eminent persons, such as the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach, who will be members of the commission and who are otherwise extremely busy and heavily engaged in running day-to-day affairs - is that, instead of using the opportunity of the new commission to have a fresh start by reinvigorating public appreciation of Parliament, as we have discussed, it will simply handle an annual budget and matters of that nature. We wish to make provision to ensure that the commission is, as it were, challenged to make a fresh start. The people involved are all very eminent, but they are also very busy.
That brings us back to the composition of the commission. The amendment proposes nothing more than an exhortation - it does not involve a legal cost and can be done within a reasonable framework. It would be very appropriate to consider a mission statement, the stakeholders involved and so on.
It is important to avoid a situation whereby, at a later stage when Members may call on the commission to take some particular initiative, the commission would not be in a position to comply because of a lack of relevant provision in the legislation. In that context, we need a broadly based provision. While I agree with the Minister of State that we cannot prescribe for everything in the Bill, we can have a broad sweep which will allow sufficient scope. I am concerned with regard to the Secretary General's remit of preparing a mission statement for "approval with or without amendment by the Commission". Will the commission be in a position to have that discussed on the floor of the House or in a committee? That is the key issue.
Can this be turned around to provide that the commission itself must perform this function, rather than just dealing with a submission from the Secretary General? We need to leave provision for open discussion and possible changes. That is my concern in that regard.
The only difference appears to be that, whereas Deputies Burton and McGrath are suggesting the statement be drawn up by the commission, the Government's version proposes that the statement be drawn up by interaction between the Secretary General and the commission. Ultimately, however, the commission will have the final decision as to whether it will approve the strategy statement, irrespective of whether that involves a big debate. That is implicit in the Bill.
In the Minister's amendment, there is no requirement to undertake wide consultation with Members of the Houses, taking a broader view, as in a mission statement, of what we are doing, why we are doing it and for whom we are acting.
The role of the commission will relate to the Office and support systems, rather than doing the business of the Oireachtas. The existing responsibilities of the Dáil and Seanad will remain.
We know that. What we are concerned with is to facilitate the carrying out of the business of the Oireachtas.
I refer to the point I made at the outset. Deputy Burton made the point that there is no provision in terms of consultation with Members. I reiterate the point that there is no provision either for consultation with the staff of these Houses, who are not elected Members of either the Seanad or the Dáil and whose input would be important.
A mission statement would be more a matter for a Government to make, in terms of its policy. I cannot see the relevance of a mission statement "setting forth values and aims". We are dealing with the management of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including the provision of moneys. I sometimes wonder where all this money will be found. It will be quite a substantial bill. I would prefer to leave the mission statement to the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern.
I can understand Deputy O'Keeffe's desire that the Taoiseach should have responsibility for the Government's mission statement. However, this issue relates to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I refer to my earlier comments in this regard in terms of those who have an interest in this place, notably the Members of the Houses. Those involved are the general public - the citizens, the elected Members and the press, who communicate our message.
I referred earlier to my dilemma in terms of being out in the wind and rain, trying to say a few words under adverse conditions. I see no reason I and those poor people should not be allowed inside, in a dry place. Lobby groups are also involved. In running the Houses of the Oireachtas, we have to consider how to facilitate all those interests.
It has nothing to do with Government policy. It is related to facilitating the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas in a way which is more modern, more attractive and, perhaps, more esteemed in the eyes of the general public in terms of being seen to do the job for which they sent us here. Many other parliaments have such statements, which enable one to focus on what one is doing, for whom one is acting and whether one is performing well. It is not so much concerned with the actual operation as with one's mission, as it were.
I concede that the Deputy has a better command of the English language than I have. However, in my opinion the term "vision" or "imagination" would be more appropriate than "mission".
If the Deputy tables that as a Government amendment, I will accept it.
With regard to Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion that the Taoiseach should prepare strategic documents, he does precisely that - and all of us know what is contained therein and how fictional they become. However, that is for another day. The strategy document to be prepared by the commission is an entirely different matter. The commission will be an independent body, concerning itself with the Houses, how they work and their management. It has nothing to do with Government policy. These Houses should be independent of Government. The commission will be an independent body which will organise the running of these Houses in the best way possible to improve and enhance democracy. The Taoiseach will not have any role whatsoever in preparing that strategic document. It will have nothing to do with pensions, social welfare or the building of houses. Its role will relate to how we do our business in these Houses and it is important that the relevant strategic document be put in place. The matter is covered in the Minister's amendment, to a great extent, but a few additional provisions are required with regard to consultation and how the work will be done.
The amendment refers to a mission statement. I suggested the term "vision" and now Deputy McGrath speaks of a strategic document. We are dealing with the management of the Houses and I do not see the function of a mission statement in that regard. A mission statement should be concerned with policy issues or a corporate plan for the future.
The issue relates to how we do our business.
We are dealing with the material business of the Houses of the Oireachtas, as distinct from legislative matters. We must also bear in mind the availability of funding for the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am concerned that if we put an excessively elaborate system in place, we will not be in a position to fund it satisfactorily. Now is the time for common sense discussion, rather than dealing with the matter next week through the media or out on the plinth.
We still appear to be out on the plinth.
The issue of funding is dealt with in amendment No. 31, to which we will come in due course. Is amendment No. 8, in the name of Deputy Burton, being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 9 has been tabled by Deputies Paul McGrath and Richard Bruton.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to develop a modern and effective parliamentary system which aspires to best practice in the major parliamentary roles of, amongst others-
(i) passing timely and appropriate legislation,
(ii) scrutinising the expenditure of public money,
(iii) assessing the conduct of public policy,
(iv) developing an understanding of emerging economic and social issues and making recommendations for change,
(v) holding office holders accountable for their decisions,".
This amendment could have been discussed with the previous amendments, as it contains many of the same sentiments. We need "to develop a modern and efficient parliamentary system" and the commission should be involved in "passing timely and appropriate legislation" and "scrutinising the expenditure of public money". It might be appropriate if the Minister could address on Report Stage the issues raised in this amendment, which amounts to a mission statement. Perhaps he can satisfy us by indicating that these issues will be covered in the strategic document, the mission statement or the strategic review that will be published by the Secretary General of the commission.
There is a great need to examine the matters mentioned in the amendment, as people ask about the status of legislation on the Order of Business every morning. If somebody were to track the questions about legislation asked in the House, and the answers that are given, he or she would find that the situation is absolutely ludicrous. It is a waste of time. If I ask about legislation, I will be told by the Taoiseach that the heads of the Bill have been agreed and the Bill will be published in the autumn. When I come back in the autumn, however, I will be told that the heads of the Bill have been agreed and the Bill will be published in the summer. The fact that the process drags on brings the House into disrepute. This matter needs to be tightened up.
I agree with those who say that the new commission does not have responsibility in this area, that Members should make these decisions and that Ministers should be accountable to Members, but the commission's remit should include references to efficiency and to enhancing the work we do in this House. We should ensure that we are not bringing ourselves into disrepute.
Perhaps there is a small problem with scrutiny of the expenditure of public money, as the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General might feel that this is entirely its responsibility. I am prepared to concede that issue. I would welcome a response from the Minister and an indication that he will try to incorporate some of my ideas in amendments on Report Stage.
Deputies Paul McGrath and Richard Bruton have wandered into other areas in this amendment. They have moved away from the aims of the commission and it is time to refocus on the purpose of this Bill. We are moving far from our brief by discussing legislation and the Comptroller and Auditor General. This amendment is not related to the reason we are here today. The new commission has been proposed to deal with the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The matters mentioned in this amendment are matters for discussion on the floor of the Dáil or the Seanad and are not really suitable for the commission.
Some people might consider the functions of the new commission under this section to be anodyne, as it can only provide for services and facilities. The aim of this Bill is not to define best practice for the commission or to dictate how it should organise itself relative to its counterparts in other European countries. In essence, the commission will have to define itself and to decide how best to conduct its business. The commission's responsibilities will include the establishment and enforcement of best principles and it can do so after it has been established. I cannot accept this amendment.
I am somewhat taken aback by the amendments being tabled by Opposition Deputies, who are more familiar than most with the procedures of the Houses. This amendment states that the commission's functions should include aspiring to best practice in "passing timely and appropriate legislation", but I consider the bringing forward of legislation to be a matter for the Government.
I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, in relation to this amendment, which I consider to be a waste of time. Those who have brought it forward know the functions of the House better than I do. The Opposition takes over the entire House on the Order of Business each day, by asking when certain Bills will be brought before it or enacted. It is quite familiar with the situation, as it is not so long since it sat on the other side of the House. I think this amendment is designed to kill time.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's point about time being wasted is the very point we are trying to make.
It is being wasted.
I know. The fact that it is being wasted was demonstrated very clearly one morning by Deputy Stanton, who read a list of all the legislation that has been promised by the Government. It took him ten or 15 minutes to do so, in an attempt to show how ridiculous it is that one is deemed to be in order when one asks about legislation. He asked about every promised Bill to demonstrate how ridiculous the procedure is. One is out of order if one wants to raise an urgent and important issue. This amendment proposes that the new commission should have a strong role in trying to reform the way in which the House is run and in making it more efficient. That is why the amendment refers to "a modern and effective parliamentary system".
It is important that we try to streamline the business of the House. Deputy O'Keeffe knows that Members try to discuss problems with roads in Mitchelstown, for example, so that their name will be on the record as having raised it, but it is an awful waste of parliamentary time. We should be dealing with far more important business in a far more efficient manner. My party is proposing, therefore, that the new commission should have a role in examining these matters.
The concept of inclusiveness was central to Deputy Burton's amendments, which were discussed earlier. The matters we are raising should be included in the legislation so that they will be capable of being addressed. This will mean that one will not be told at a later date that one cannot discuss such matters because they are not covered in this legislation.
This issue relates to the running of the Houses, which decide their own Standing Orders. There is not much point in criticising the rules here, or for the commission to do so. The House orders its business and if it wants to change its procedures, it can alter its Standing Orders. I do not think some other group should be asked to do it, as it is a matter for the Members of the House, who adopt Standing Orders and who have the authority to amend and vary them as they see fit.
The Standing Orders dealing with questions in the morning have been changed recently, with Opposition support. I think this was a retrograde step on the part of the Opposition.
Does the Deputy refer to the release of the Taoiseach?
Yes. The ball is at the foot of the Opposition more often than it is at the foot of the Government. The Opposition should make hay while the sun shines, but it is obviously not doing so. I do not agree with the reference in this amendment to "passing timely and appropriate legislation", as that is a function of the Government and the Executive - the Taoiseach and his Ministers.
The Deputy is mixed up between Government and the commission.
No.
The Deputy is mixed up between the two.
No, I am not. Legislation has to be a function of Government. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, can explain that to the Opposition. The Deputies opposite want the House to take over the functions of the Government and for it to be the Executive, as I see it.
Is amendment No. 9 being pressed?
No. Perhaps the Minister will address some of these issues on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.35 p.m.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) to appoint the Secretary General,”.
This is a brief amendment. I would expect that a commission, or any such body, would appoint its secretary general. Section 15 deals with the transfer of the function of the Clerk of the Dáil to become the Secretary General of the commission. Would it not also seem appropriate that the body should actually appoint its Secretary General, in addition to the legislation stating that the person fulfilling such and such a role will automatically become Secretary General?
The Clerk of the Dáil is currently appointed by the Taoiseach after the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance agree on a nominee. Where they fail to agree, the Taoiseach makes the appointment with the concurrence of the Dáil. The Clerk is currently, ex officio, the chief executive of the office. The only modification being made in the legislation is that the Minister for Finance is being ousted from the procedure. The chairman makes the recommendation but after consultation with the commission. Since the legislation operates on the basis that the Secretary General of the commission will also be the Clerk of the Dáil, a system where both are involved in the nomination seems ideal.
The commission will have no role in saying yea or nay. The appointment appears to be a formality. What will happen in future on the retirement of the Secretary General, as there are procedures laid down for the appointment of the Clerk of the Dáil but no procedures are to be laid down for the appointment of the Secretary General of the commission? The position of the Clerk of the Dáil is being absorbed, but what will be the procedure since this office will already be defunct?
I presume it will be the same as now, that as soon as the Clerk of the Dáil is appointed this new procedure will come into being, in terms of the office of Secretary General of the commission.
I presume the position of the Clerk of the Dáil will, therefore, remain. Section 15 states: "The office of the Clerk of Daíl Éireann is, on and after the establishment day, known as the office of the Secretary General of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas (in this Act referred to as the "Secretary General")." Will amending legislation be needed to facilitate an appointment to this position in the future? Would it not be wise to make the required changes in this Bill, rather than amend other legislation?
The issue will be addressed in later amendments.
An amendment on the issue will be tabled on Report Stage.
It will be tabled on Committee Stage - in section 15.
Section 15 provides for the change in the title of Clerk of the Dáil to Secretary General of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Does the provision mean that once the current incumbent becomes Secretary General, the position of Clerk of the Dáil will cease? Is there a procedure in place to appoint a Secretary General to assume the functions of the current Clerk of the Dáil as distinct from the procedure established in previous legislation for the appointment of Clerk of the Dáil?
The amendment allows both positions to be retained. The position of Clerk of the Dáil will be retained and the person who holds it will be the Secretary General. Therefore, the same person will fill both positions in future.
The position will not be suppressed?
It will not be done away with. Under Oireachtas legislation, there must be a Clerk of the Dáil.
Perhaps the Minister of State is not fully aware of the point I am making. Previous legislation covered the appointment of the Clerk of the Dáil. Since the legislation before us will abolish that function, will amending legislation, for instance, with regard to the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners, be required when the current incumbent leaves the position?
That issue will be addressed in later amendments.
It is specifically addressed in amendment No. 61.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 3 to 5, to delete paragraph (b).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on Revenue. I have notified the Deputy who tabled it to this effect.
This gets to the heart of the role of the new commission, namely, it must have sufficient funds to provide various services. This will be a contentious matter at all times.
The amendment is out of order and cannot be discussed. The issue of funding is specifically addressed in a later amendment.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, and 24 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, subsection (1), to delete lines 10 and 11 and substitute the following:
"(d) (i) subject to subparagraph (ii), to exercise the functions of the Minister, including any functions regarding the making of regulations in so far as they relate to those functions, in respect of the provision of secretarial facilities as provided for in the following enactments:
(I) section 10 of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938 (inserted by section 5 of the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1996 and amended by section 1 of the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Act 2001), and
(II) section 2 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act 1962 (as amended by section 11 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1992 and by section 33 of the Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001),".
This amendment deals with the provision of secretarial facilities for both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is, I suppose, pot luck that I have chosen this amendment to make my point, but make it I will and this is as appropriate a time as any. It is not just the provision of secretarial facilities that we need in both Houses of the Oireachtas. One of the other serious deficiencies in the Houses is the failure to provide crèche facilities not only for Members, but for staff. While I do not expect the Minister of State to amend the Bill now, I urge him either in this section - to which the matter in its broadest sense is appropriate - or at some other point along the way to make the appropriate amendment to the Bill.
It is unacceptable that we do not have facilities for parents of young children. With many children now on holiday, there are single parents, among Members and staff, who have the added difficulty of having to procure outside assistance and support. Surely in an enlightened society we should provide crèche facilities and treat them as being as important as all the other facilities and services for which the Minister and Opposition have provided. I appeal to the Minister to provide on Report Stage an amendment which will confirm the intent of the Bill to have this serious deficiency addressed on this campus.
My Department has advanced plans to provide a crèche and exercise room. Media comments on the issue refer to an extravagant gym when, in fact, the facility will be a basic exercise room for anyone who wishes to use it. I am not certain the facilities will be available before the commission is functioning.
I ask the Minister of State for clarification. Is he saying the facility - I refer to the crèche - will not be provided solely for the Department's requirements, but will be provided——
The facilities will be provided for Members and staff of the Oireachtas.
The crèche facilities - we will leave the treadmills for another day.
Amendment No. 14 cannot be moved because it is an alternative to amendment No. 13.
I am confused with regard to the Chairman's approach to procedure, about which I asked Deputy Paul McGrath. I understood I would be called to speak on amendment No. 14 and chose, therefore, not to speak to the Minister's amendment to save time. The Chairman did not refer to me during the discussion of the previous group of amendments. I wanted to speak to my amendment.
I apologise to the Deputy. I indicated we would discuss amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, and 24 together by agreement. We may discuss the amendment, but it cannot be moved.
My amendment No. 14 proposes to insert in page 5, subsection (1)(d)(i), line 11, after “to” the words “members of and political parties represented”. The current wording provides for secretarial facilities “to each House of the Oireachtas”. Most Members view secretarial facilities as being provided to Members of and political parties represented in the Oireachtas. However, the wording in the Bill does not contain a commitment to Members. Why would one have secretarial facilities, other than for the Members and political parties? The wording is extremely weak in guaranteeing secretarial services to Members.
The provisions are to a great extent subject to the control of the Minister. In recent times, for instance, the Department of Finance abolished - unilaterally, I believe, although I am not fully aware of the background - the ability of newly appointed secretarial assistants who were of mature years or had relevant experience to commence at the fifth or sixth point on the scale. I do not know the reason the Department took this action. It is much more difficult for Members to recruit staff of some experience or of a certain age when the persons in question must start on the scale of an 18 or 19 year old.
The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the commitment in the Bill to Members and the political parties and ensure we do not have the set-up provided for in the section, which would be dictated by the Government, the Minister for Finance and his Department and would, therefore, lack independence.
A number of the related amendments amount to the same thing, that is, a guarantee concerning the level of service which will be provided to Members. We briefly referred to the difficulties Members have in performing their functions, particularly with regard to research, how they carry it out, the research facilities available to them and so on. I refer the Minister of State to strand two, Members' services, international benchmarking review of theDeloitte & Touche Houses of the Oireachtas final report of 11 March 2002. Although the report was published before the Minister of State joined the House, it will no doubt have been brought to his attention.
On page 2, it lists the recommendations made by the body which examined international practice and made a number of recommendations. Some Members met representatives ofDeloitte & Touche to discuss our workload and various other matters. The report recommended the establishment of a dedicated research unit of 20 researchers based in the Library. Although the proposal is not costed, it is important it is implemented and I call on the Minister to guarantee it will be.
Many Members regard the second recommendation as even more important. It addresses staffing and secretarial support and recommends each Deputy should be provided with one additional member of staff. The net cost of the measure is put at €4.99 million. In discussions among Members, the question arose as to where one would house this additional staff. If, for example, the 136 Members who do not have the benefit of being in Government were to take on additional staff, where would one find office space for them. This issue, while not covered in the report, could be worked out. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that we can implement the recommendations outlined in the Deloitte & Touche report. Members expect the report to be implemented and were given assurances that it would be implemented in full. It was a well prepared document and expectations were raised that it would be followed through. I hope it will be. Where stands the commission in the event that the recommended additional staff are taken on and an additional building becomes necessary?
I note the section on expenses does not refer to the maintenance of the Houses or the provision of a new building. I presume this will remain the responsibility of the Office of Public Works. Let us, for the purposes of clarification, take the doomsday scenario that this underground room were flooded in a major flood and extensive works became necessary. Will the Minister of State assure us that the Office of Public Works will still be responsible for carrying out the necessary works or similar type works such as roof repairs and that the required funding would not be taken from the commission's budget? I think I know the answer to my question, but I want it clarified to avoid confusion later.
Some Office of Public Works staff work in the Houses on a permanent basis. Will they remain Office of Public Works staff? The couriers who work downstairs wear Office of Public Works t-shirts. What will happen to them? I assume they will continue to be Office of Public Works staff. Will the Minister of State clarify the position?
My final point, which has already been well made by Deputy Burton, relates to the recruitment of staff. Recruitment is a major problem for Dublin Deputies. It does not affect Deputies from rural areas to the same extent because wage rates there are not as high as in Dublin and secretarial positions in the Houses are relatively attractive to people living in provincial towns. I constantly hear colleagues from Dublin say the starting salary for secretarial staff is not sufficient to attract people with the requisite ability, skills and commitment. The Minister of State may also have encountered the problem. These positions are currently subject to Civil Service rates of pay. Will the commission be given leeway to rectify this growing problem?
The Minister has gone along with the recommendations of the Deloitte & Touche report. If one examines the commission's budget, which I am sure the Deputy has done already, it provides the commission with substantial sums of money, which is well in excess of the figure of €4.9 million to which the Deputy referred. It will be a matter for the commission to decide whom it wants to employ. I recall the Minister colourfully remarking in the Dáil on one occasion that if the commission wanted to employ Geisha girls around the Houses, it would be its choice. The commission has autonomy over its budget and the making of appointments.
On the question of where new staff would be housed, whether here or in Members' constituencies, the commission has responsibility for current expenditure only and, as this would be a capital issue, the decision would be taken elsewhere.
I assume the Office of Public Works will be available to the commission to carry out the functions to which the Deputy referred. However, if the commission were to decide there were better alternatives available or the quality of the Office of Public Works's work was not adequate, it would be free to look elsewhere. I am certain, however, that the Office of Public Works would wish to continue to carry out maintenance functions. In the event, God forbid, that the Chamber flooded, the necessary works would continue to be an Office of Public Works function. I assume staff of the Office of Public Works such as couriers and messengers who currently work in the Houses would continue to be employed by the Office of Public Works. Obviously it will be a challenge to find accommodation for additional staff who may be recruited in the future. As this involves capital investment, it would not be a decision for the commission.
Effectively, under this legislation, the commission is the equivalent of a Department of State. I understand Departments of State have no power to own property in their own right. This means the commission could not have legal ownership of this building because, like other Departments of State, such ownership would be vested in the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works would, therefore, always retain the residual landlord ownership responsibilities with regard to unforeseen events.
To take up Deputy Paul McGrath's point, I am not convinced the wording of section 11 is correct. The section states that all rights and property held or enjoyed by the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the performance of its functions will be transferred. The Minister of State's advisers will no doubt state the Houses of the Oireachtas own certain assets. Clarification is required in this respect. Property and buildings definitely stay within the remit of the Office of Public Works. I do not think we have a choice.
Since all buildings will be maintained and capital projects will be undertaken by the Office of Public Works, that will in effect control what the commission can do in terms of recruiting additional personnel. I am glad the Minister of State has reaffirmed what the Minister, Deputy McCreevy said, that he is committed to implementing the Deloitte & Touche report. If we went that road and recruited the 136 additional staff members, that could cause logistical problems. Many offices could accommodate them but people might not want to move to them. We would then have to consider where we would locate them. If the Office of Public Works says it does not have the money to spend on a new building, major refurbishment or whatever, that would in effect control whether additional staff could be hired.
Responsibility for what happens in the Houses is being transferred to the Department of Finance which will control exactly what happens in terms of staff recruitment. What can the Minister of State say on that or what assurances can he give that, if the commission needs additional staff, his Department and the Office of Public Works for which he has responsibility will be able to respond and not effectively veto the recruitment of additional staff?
I understand the Houses of the Oireachtas are exempt as far as the Office of Public Works is concerned, which means that the Office of Public Works is obliged to carry out any maintenance and upkeep work in the Houses.
The Office of Public Works is the landlord.
It is the landlord and the owner. In the context of the capital expenditure that may accrue as a result of a decision by the commission to recruit an additional 200 staff, I stress that the Office of Public Works is the largest renter of property in Dublin, at present. It does not own all the property it occupies. There is a genuine difficulty locating staff on the Leinster House campus, but I am sure the option of finding rented accommodation is something that can be pursued.
Budget will dictate everything. A figure of €4.9 million was given by Deloitte & Touche for employing the extra people. I understand that about €40 million extra is in the budget for three years. It will be very much a decision the executive must take and it will not be able to blame the Minister for Finance or the Minister of State.
Does the Minister of State not see my point that, although the commission may decide and may have the money to recruit extra staff, there would be a difficulty accommodating the 136 extra people?
Such are the major decisions that must be taken. One must cut one's cloth to suit one's measure. If I had an extra assistant, I would prefer to have him or her located in my constituency.
Some would not.
Dublin Deputies probably would not.
They have constituency offices as well. The Leinster House campus is overflowing. There is scope to add on an extra floor and take other measures. That is a decision the Houses would have to take in light of the overall economic situation. I do not know how well it might be viewed by the public if the commission were to decide to spend €100 million on a new floor for extra staff. If capital issues arise, I am sure it will be a Government decision within the existing budget.
Does the Minister of State see the point I make? The Department of Finance in effect still has a veto because the implications of extra space are such that any decision will be a case of the Minister signing off on whatever additional capital works are needed, despite that the commission is being established on a supposedly independent basis to manage its affairs.
Everything comes back to the Minister eventually.
We are trying to get away from that.
The Deputy is talking about Utopia.
It is appropriate at this stage when we are discussing the inadequacy of the accommodation on this campus to register my strong opposition to any proposal to incorporate the National Museum building into this entity to address the straitened accommodation problems with which we must contend. It would be outrageous to eject or evict the National Museum from its long-standing location.
(Interruptions).
That is a diversion.
It may be a diversion but let there be no mistake about it——
We are talking about museum pieces now.
I have a number of other points I wish to make.
The Deputy should address the amendments.
I did not raise the issue of building another floor. I make the point strongly that I know that people addressing the matter are considering exactly what I have highlighted, and I am registering my strong opposition to it. That opposition would be reflected within a wide spectrum of public and popular opinion.
On a point of information——
No, Deputy Ó Caoláin has the floor.
Perhaps Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is looking for a place in the National Museum or the wax works. He can talk to Deputy Cassidy about that.
On the issue of staff and the situation where the Department of Finance through the Minister will continue to have a virtual veto on staffing levels and support staff for the political parties, I know that smaller political parties have no lesser a need than other parties larger in number. However, everything is commensurate, and that makes it more difficult for an individual Deputy with multiple portfolio responsibilities and yet who is limited to singular support staff. This matter needs to be addressed because, in terms of the commensurate system for allocating resources, that is, in proportion to support or seats gained, any examination of electoral results would indicate that seats gained do not reflect support secured. Some revisitation of this is required.
It would be remiss of me if I did not record the fact that the current levels of remuneration for what are described as secretarial or parliamentary assistants to individual Deputies are derisory. The lowest grade of Civil Service payments are made to people whose responsibilities clearly go far beyond what the tag of "secretarial assistant" suggests. They are intimately involved in the scrutiny of legislation and a raft of other work in support of their individual Deputies. It is outrageous that they are offered such poor remuneration from the commencement point. It is a matter that also needs to be addressed.
I have some concern that the Minister and his Department continue to hold a veto on expansion in terms of accommodation and on the rates of pay that might apply. Heretofore they have not demonstrated what I would regard as an adequate generosity.
We are on Committee Stage, not Second Stage. What Deputy Ó Caoláin said is very important and I admire it and support much of what he said about remuneration and the secretarial allowance. However, we are on Committee Stage and should not make Second Stage speeches. If we continue to introduce red herrings in this manner, we will be here for the next ten weeks.
I am moving on. Deputy Ó Caoláin spoke specifically about secretarial facilities and payments which is the subject matter of the amendments under discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 5, subsection (1), to delete lines 12 to 17 and substitute the following:
"(ii) in relation to secretarial facilities referred to at subparagraph (i), to obtain the consent of the Minister before reaching an agreement with any person in relation to rates of pay, conditions of employment or superannuation rights,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Just, on that point the amendment smacks of Big Brother, as the commission will be prevented from doing its job. The Minister of State is saying if the commission wants to set a rate of pay for a particular job, it will have to go back to Big Brother and seek approval. That is out of keeping with the establishment of an "independent" body. The Minister for Finance said, colourfully, that if the commission wanted to employ geisha girls, it was entitled to do so but that is not the case. The commission is completely tied in under this section to rates of pay and so on. The explanatory memorandum states the commission is to be totally independent but the Minister is still maintaining control and will dictate the rates of pay to the commission. It is not being given autonomy.
On a procedural matter, my amendment No. 16——
Was amendment No. 15 agreed?
Yes.
I must disallow that, then.
A Deputy
No, it is not agreed.
Does my amendment No. 16 fall since my previous amendment was intended to amend the Bill, as published? That is a tactical query. I want the phrase "subject to the consent of the Minister" removed because that is the purpose——
Will the Deputy clarify that?
The purpose of amendment No. 16 is to remove the phrase "subject to the consent of the Minister" from the Bill, as drafted.
Correct.
The Minister's amendment No. 15 now changes lines 12 and 13. I seek your advice, Chairman. I still wish to table an amendment seeking to remove that phrase.
Another point I would make is with regard to people who work as secretarial assistants in the Dáil. Traditionally, the majority have been women and one of the reasons the job has such low rates of pay is the bulk of the employees have been women. More men have taken up that position in recent times. When we refer to whomever the Minister for Finance says is employed in the House, we should not imply disrespect towards those who work as secretarial assistants because most of them provide a good service and they do a good job. Unfortunately, the job is not sufficiently recognised in terms of its complexity.
One of the astonishing things I learned is that, although Members made a submission on benchmarking, when I was temporarily absent, no representations were made on behalf of the secretarial and other staff of the political parties and Members. I do not know how that happened but, without doubt, they do an excellent job. However, in terms of starting pay and conditions of service, they deserve to be recognised as performing a multi-skilled job. I speak for every Member in acknowledging their skill and the assistance they give to Members. We should try to ensure their status is enhanced and properly recognised and rewarded.
Why were amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not grouped with amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 24, as they relate to the same section? As Deputy Burton pointed out, amendment No. 16 is commensurate on the original text. Chairman, you asked whether amendment No. 15 was accepted and I am recording "no".
The Deputy sought clarification. The reason amendments Nos. 16 and 17 were not grouped with amendments Nos. 13 and 14 and 15 is they are out of order and, therefore, they cannot be moved. I wrote a letter to the Deputies in this regard. The amendments cannot be discussed, although they can be discussed in the context of the debate on the section. The reason they are ruled out of order is they involve a potential charge on the Revenue and such amendments can only be moved by a member of the Government.
Deputy Burton asked for advice on how to proceed. She can table the amendment again on Report Stage and work on a formula of words that will mean it will not be ruled out of order.
That leaves me with no option other than to oppose amendment No. 15.
We agreed amendment No. 15.
Chairman, you asked the question there and I responded. Some will say you asked it twice. I did not hear you the first time.
I put the question and it was agreed.
You put it again, then.
No. I have done it once and possibly twice.
I am recording my opposition to it anyway.
The second time it was for clarification only.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, subsection (1)(e)(ii), line 23, to delete “Committees of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 are related to amendment No. 19. All may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 25 to 37, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following:
"(f) subject to subsections (3) and (4)-
(i) in relation to matters arising from the performance by them of their functions as members of Dáil Éireann or of a Committee of Dáil Éireann, and where authorised by Dáil Éireann to do so on behalf of such members, and in accordance with the terms of such authorisation, to-
(I) initiate legal proceedings as plaintiff or applicant,
(II) seek leave to intervene in existing legal proceedings,
(III) seek leave to be joined as a notice party in legal proceedings,
(ii) in relation to matters arising from the performance by them of their functions as members of Seanad Éireann or of a Committee of Seanad Éireann, and where authorised by Seanad Éireann to do so on behalf of such members, and in accordance with the terms of such authorisation, to-
(I) initiate legal proceedings as plaintiff or applicant,
(II) seek leave to intervene in existing legal proceedings,
(III) seek leave to be joined as a notice party in legal proceedings,
(iii) in relation to matters arising from the performance by them of their functions as members of an Oireachtas Committee, and where authorised by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to do so on behalf of such members, and in accordance with the terms of such authorisation to-
(I) initiate legal proceedings as plaintiff or applicant,
(II) seek leave to intervene in existing legal proceedings,
(III) seek leave to be joined as a notice party in legal proceedings,
(iv) in relation to any legal proceedings initiated against members of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann or a Committee of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann or an Oireachtas Committee, as regards matters arising from the performance by them of their functions as such members, to conduct the defence of such proceedings on behalf, or for the benefit of, such members,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 6, before line 1, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The functions of the Minister, other than functions that relate to reaching an agreement with any person in relation to rates of pay, conditions of employment or superannuation rights, in respect of the provision of secretarial facilities under the following enactments, including functions in relation to the making of regulations, are transferred to the Commission on and from the establishment day:
(a) section 10 of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938 (inserted by section 5 of the Oireachtas (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1996 and amended by section 1 of the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Act 2001), and
(b) section 2 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act 1962 (as amended by section 11 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1992 and by section 33 of the Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Amendment No. 27 is an alternative to amendment No. 26 while amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are related. All may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 6, subsection (4), line 8, after "or" to insert "a general election to".
This is a technical amendment, which seeks to insert the phrase "general election". The Dáil can be dissolved but there is no such thing as a dissolution of Seanad Éireann. Does the Minister of State accept the amendment?
This is a technical correction. The subsection was intended to ensure the Minister's representative ceased to be a member whenever he or she ceased to be a Senator. It mentioned that taking place on the dissolution of the Seanad. However, only the Dáil is dissolved and, therefore, the amendment is necessary to cover the scenario where the member ceases to be a member after election to it.
Does the Minister of State accept the amendment?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 6, subsection (4), line 8, to delete "Seanad Éireann" and substitute "a general election for Seanad Éireann after the dissolution".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 6, lines 9 to 13, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) (a) In any legal proceedings referred to at subsection (1)(f) against members of a Committee of Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann or an Oireachtas Committee, it shall not be necessary to name each member of that Committee as parties to the proceedings and it shall be sufficient-
(i) where the Committee is still in existence when the proceedings are commenced, to name the Chairperson of that Committee to conduct the defence of such proceedings in such cause or matter, on behalf, or for the benefit, of all members so interested,
(ii) where the Committee has ceased to exist before the proceedings are commenced, to name the Commission to conduct the defence of such proceedings in such cause or matter, on behalf, or for the benefit, of all members so interested.
(b) In any legal proceedings referred to at subparagraph (i) where the committee has been dissolved or ceases to exist after the proceedings are commenced, the Commission shall be taken to be the Chairperson of the Committee to defend the proceedings in such cause or matter, on behalf, or for the benefit, of all members so interested.”.
I refer to the amendments tabled by the Minister on legal representation. Will the Minister of State provide a note on the implications of the legislation, as amended, on legal representation? I do not follow the total effect of the amendments. The question of legal representation is important to members and, therefore, I would appreciate a note of the Minister of State's advice in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 3.35 p.m. and resumed at 3.45 p.m.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Before we dispose of section 4, I understand there may be a technical error in relation to the passing of amendments Nos. 26 and 27. Will the Minister of State comment on how that might be dealt with on Report Stage?
We are prepared to consider this on Report Stage.
Yes, and to correct any technical error following the passing of those two amendments. Is section 4, as amended, agreed to?
I oppose it. We only had sight of the Minister's amendments this morning. We all have multiple responsibilities. It was difficult to go through each and every one of them in the short time available. We had the Order of Business from 10.30 a.m. and it was just not humanly possible to go through the amendments. In the Chairm
an's eagerness to conclude this business today, he is understandably motoring through the various amendments. Amendment No. 24, which went through as members were trying to catch up in terms of reading all this, deals with the functions of the Minister - although not the functions that relate to rates of pay, employment or superannuation rights in respect of the provision of secretarial facilities - being transferred to the commission on and from the establishment day. This has been highlighted by several of my colleagues in an earlier amendment that has been addressed. Although we sought to record our opposition, the Chairman asserted that a decision had already been taken on amendment No. 15.
I oppose amendment No. 24. I also oppose the section accordingly because retention of these responsibilities by the Minister erodes in a substantive way the potential of the commission to carry out its functions. This is being done even before the commission is up and running. It is unacceptable. It should be given the opportunity to get on with the work and that should include those specific areas. For those reasons and others I already articulated, I oppose section 4.
Before I put the question, I would like to comment on one issue. The timing of the amendments to be lodged for all committees is 11 a.m. the day before the Bill is to be taken on Committee Stage, and that was done in this case. We all received in the post during the course of yesterday up to the evening time the various amendments submitted by the Opposition parties and by the Minister. Members received them yesterday evening, although they may have seen them only this morning. They were only printed in the form of the combined green leaflet this morning, but they were printed in the form of the white sheet yesterday evening. The Deputy's point is that it makes it very tight for people to consider each other's amendment when one only sees them at best the evening before they come before the committee.
Neither I nor my colleagues had sight of these until this morning.
Mine was in my post box yesterday evening and I am sure that is the standard procedure, but even at that the time frame is tight. Those are the rules of the House. This procedure is to facilitate people making amendments up to as late as is practicably possible. If Members are of the view that this measure should be brought back a day, such a measure, if agreed, would apply to all committees and not only to this one.
Before the Chairman puts the question, in the context of what happened, will the Minister of State undertake as soon as possible before Report Stage to send us a note on the meaning of the legal defence arrangements and so on as a consequence of the inclusion of all these amendments? Different members of my party are interested in this matter and I would like to be able to brief them on it. I am sure that may also apply to other members.
We may have an alternative wording, a better wording, from our legal side before Report Stage.
I would have thought so, but I am not a lawyer.
Neither am I. My officials are working on it. It has been difficult for them to come with the proper wording, but if and when they do——
It would be helpful if the Minister of State could give us a briefing note because many members of my parliamentary party would like to peruse such a note.
I appreciate that.
Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 29 has already been discussed with amendment No. 8.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.-(1) The Commission shall publish a three year strategic plan as soon as is practicable after its appointment which shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in draft form for consultation, before being finally adopted by the Commission.
(2) The strategic plan shall be reviewed annually and a report of progress towards the objectives of the plan will be presented in the Commission's Annual Report.".
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 30 has already been discussed with amendment No. 8.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.-(1) The strategic plan shall consider inter alia, how the Oireachtas can improve its effectiveness in respect of——
(a) the conduct of investigations on matters of public interest,
(b) the most appropriate means for debating and assessing the budgetary framework and the expenditure proposals of Ministers before financial decisions are made on these matters,
(c) the most appropriate means for bringing knowledge and experience from outside the House to bear, on matters where the Oireachtas intends to introduce new legislative provisions,
(d) the most appropriate means for the supervision of State companies and executive agencies.
(2) In the context of this planning process, the Commission may make proposals for legislative change for consideration by the Government to improve the effectiveness of the Houses of the Oireachtas.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 18, to delete "€226,103,000" and substitute "€295,000,000".
Amendment No. 31 goes to the core of the Bill as it has been presented to us. It sets out the amount of money, some €295 million, that will be the funding for this commission for the next three years, starting on 1 January. Various submissions have been made to the Department of Finance about the amount of funds that would be required. My understanding from the discussions we had on those figures was that a "do nothing" situation of keeping everything exactly as it was led to a scenario in which we would require €255 million. What is being sanctioned by the Minister is an additional €40 million spread over three years. That will give us about €13 million per year. If one looks at the kind of amendments and changes about which Members on all sides have been talking, in addition to the Deloitte & Touche report, it will leave the commission on a very tight budget to actually survive over the coming three years. Getting staff to do the kinds of jobs we are looking for, with the skilled expertise we require, will make it extremely difficult to live within that figure. I know it has been set for the three years but there are in-built difficulties as well. We do not know what will happen concerning future wage agreements. We are locked in for next year at 7% and that has been taken into account in the actual figure, outside the €40 million. What will happen further down the road, however? How insulated will we be from future wage agreements so as to avoid a standing still, in that we may not be able to have any additional staff whatsoever because of wage increases that will use up the extra millions we have? I would like the Minister of State to comment on that point.
I note, however, that the Bill includes an open-ended, elastic provision in that should we run out of money in the last year we can draw down additional moneys from the Department of Finance to keep us going. I suppose that is the elastic or braces that are built into the Bill to allow for that extra bit of flexibility so that should the commission decide it would proceed down its own road it will have that in-built safety net. Some would say that €40 million is a substantial increase but, on the other hand, when one looks at the recommendations of the Deloitte &Touche report, and knowing the requirements and expectations of Members - you and I, Chairman, have been backbenchers for a good while and we know what is needed - a great deal is required. How does the Minister of State envisage that €40 million will cope with the requirements of Members? How was this figure arrived at? What was the in-built criteria used by the Department of Finance in providing the extra €40 million. Was it the case that the "standing-still" scenario was €255 million, while the figure sought by our submissions was €80 million more than that, at €335 million, so the Minister of State struck a half way-mark?
It was much more sophisticated than that.
Perhaps the Minister of State will give us the benefit of his expertise in explaining the criteria used in arriving at that figure. What was envisaged in granting this extra €40 million?
This amendment increases the sum provided to €295 million for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006. In the expectation of arrangements being introduced along these lines, the office engaged a firm of consultants to make recommendations on the benchmarking level of staffing and resources to be made available to the office and to parliamentarians directly. The final outcome of that study was not available in time for the Second Stage debate in the Dáil and a holding figure was included in the published Bill. The explanatory memorandum made it clear that this would be replaced by a definitive figure following discussions by the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle. These discussions have now taken place and it is proposed to insert the sum of €295 million for 2004 to 2006, in place of the €226 million which was previously published.
The international benchmarking study of the resources available to the Houses of the Oireachtas was commissioned with a view to establishing the optimum staffing level which would comfortably operate under the new Oireachtas commission system. As every Member of the Oireachtas is aware, since the commissioning of that study, the Exchequer position and the national economic outlook has worsened considerably and the Government has to recognise that reality in the resources it allocates to every sector. The Houses of the Oireachtas cannot be immune to this and I am sure they would not wish to be. It is expected that the Oireachtas commission will use the significantly increased allocation, which the Minister for Finance has agreed with the Ceann Comhairle, to allocate funds to areas it deems to be of the highest priority. The Minister for Finance also considers it reasonable that when a much tighter approach to public expenditure and public service numbers has to prevail generally, Oireachtas Members should want to play their part and modify their expectations for the office. The sum the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle agreed is €295 million to cover the period 2004 to 2006 and this amount will now be substituted on Committee Stage. It is a very generous increase of €40 million from the earlier level, which represents €13 million a year over three years. In these very tight situations we cannot be immune from the actual economic situation.
Will the Minister of State circulate that note because it is important for Members of the various parliamentary parties to have access to it? I want to register a protest because I take grave exception to the Minister for Finance only consulting the Ceann Comhairle about the finalisation of the amounts involved. In many ways, this shows what the future commission may well be like - dominated by the Government and a Ceann Comhairle who, by the way, gives very little leeway to Members of the Opposition. I am really surprised at the Minister for Finance because - while I know he has made much effort to improve the situation for Members, and Members are grateful for that - at the very least I would have expected that the discussions should have been referred, even as a courtesy, to an appropriate committee dealing with Members' interests or to the Whips or the representatives of the different parties.
I understand secretarial assistants and others who work for the political parties were not part of the benchmarking process. In fairness and justice, and given the amount of work they do, particularly the secretarial assistants, they should be allowed access to the process as a matter of priority. I am sure that point would have been made if Members or their representatives had access to those discussions.
I presume when the Minister of State refers to the consultants he is referring to Deloitte & Touche and the initial assessment undertaken. I hope an additional team of consultants was not engaged to reassess what Deloitte & Touche had done and make further recommendations. Allowing for that, a provision of €13 million per year will not provide for the Deloitte & Touche recommendations. More will be needed. We are open to the effects of possible wage agreements and increases. If additional personnel are to be recruited at a higher level, as recommended by Deloitte & Touche, it will be more expensive, especially for those based in the city, where wage levels are much higher than in the provinces.
An allocation of €13 million per year is sizeable by any standards. If I recall correctly, a figure of less than €5 million was mentioned as the cost of employing an extra 130 or so secretarial assistants. The Bill also provides for additional allocations at a later stage. Given the money provided, there is a reasonable expectation that we should be able to improve services. It is important that extra secretarial assistants are recruited and I agree with the Minister about the desirability of having secretarial assistants at constituency level. Over the years I have provided for one from my own funds and I would like at least some reimbursement from the Oireachtas.
Deputy McGrath has expressed concern that the proposed funding may not be adequate to cover all areas. Further debate may be required on this, especially if the proposed additional funding of €8 million proves to be inadequate. The Deputy referred to the accommodation aspect. That would need to be evaluated on the basis of the wishes and intentions of Deputies regarding having assistants at constituency level. If that is their wish, they may be in a position to address the accommodation aspect themselves.
There is now an opportunity to address this aspect. If it transpires that in the three years period commencing on 1 January there will be provision to double the number of secretarial assistants to Members, we will have gone a long way to address Members' concerns. I would be very pleased with such a development. There is also provision for the expenditure of an additional €8 million after that.
I welcome the additional funding. The commission will have to decide whether to proceed with the allocation of a second secretarial assistant. I hope it does so. I foresee an assistant combining a PA and research role. However, apart from that, the question of office renewals must be considered, including the replacement of equipment. The funding allocation for that should be relatively small. We must also ensure that the back up to the Oireachtas Library in terms of research facilities is provided. That may be costly. If Members are to be allocated a second secretarial assistant further equipment will be required, which will be expensive. Given these factors, the envisaged funding is very tight and may not be sufficient. I had hoped the budget allocation would provide for more leeway. Perhaps the Minister will consider increasing the allocation.
It is a contradictory position to provide that there will be an allocation of moneys to the Oireachtas Commission which will address the remunerative needs of the Houses while decisions on rates of pay and remuneration will be left to the Minster. Improving capital expenditure on matters such as press facilities, increased office accommodation and crèche facilities was mentioned. Will this extra funding address both capital and current expenditure in the Houses of the Oireachtas over the next three years? Will the proposed ceiling on expenditure apply across the board or will the remit for capital projects be outside it?
Leaving aside the Deloitte & Touche recommendations, will the Minister of State provide before Report Stage the Department's breakdown of the new suggested expenditure figure of €295 million into the various proposed headings? Without this information it is difficult to decide on an overall budget. As it is, it is proposed to add almost €70 million to the figure of €226 million earlier provided for.
Deputy McGrath expressed concern that the proposed budget is tight. Given the current economic climate, the Minster is obliged to maintain tight budgets. It will be a challenge.
With regard to the overall figures, we will have no difficulty in providing a breakdown of the original figure of €255 million. It is on the record.
Will the Minster of State provide the figures to each Member?
They are on the record and they can be provided. On the basis of current costs, the proposed additional allocation of €40 million would provide for 200 extra staff. It is for the commission to decide on extra recruitment. The Deputy seems to want to decide here and now what should be done going forward. That will be for the commission to decide.
Unfortunately there is a limit. In any financial climate a Minister for Finance will not say, "Set up a new commission and we will give it unlimited funding." It would be careless in the extreme for a Minister for Finance to allow such a development.
The extra €40 million over the three years will provide for an extra 200 staff. That is one option which the commission can look at, but in spending €40 million there are many options. Clearly, I would expect that the expertise and the experience which will come around the table will decide what is the best option for the spend for the Houses of the Oireachtas, but it is already laid out exactly where the €255 million will be spent across the board, in terms of pensions and salaries for Deputies and Senators, and in terms of all the other expenses within the Houses.
Can the Minister of State provide clarification? Is it a case of providing either for staff and salaries or for the capital projects, the improved facilities we spent some time addressing earlier? Does this figure encompass all of those areas or are the capital projects extra - over and above this ceiling?
The remit of the commission, and that budget, is entirely current spending. We could talk around this table for a long time about the nice new capital projects we might envisage, but it will be an issue for the commission to decide what, if any, capital expenditure is deemed to be necessary in the new situation. That will be an extra, over and above the €295 million which is put in place.
The €255 million takes into account the benchmarking and all the future pay conditions in place. The €40 million over and above that is a very real figure. It is a substantial figure in this day and age - €40 million is a great deal of money - and certainly will give much scope to the commission as to how it wants to spend it to best effect.
In the current climate I welcome the amount of money which has been provided. The point I was making was that if there are preliminary discussions between the Minister for Finance and the Ceann Comhairle, particularly on how the increased budget will be spent, I want to state on behalf of the Labour Party that, in one way or another, representatives of the parties in the House - either through the Committee on Members' Interests, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or the whips' system - should be enabled to be part of that discussion.
The Labour Party would like to see the extra resourcing providing, first, per the report ofDeloitte & Touche, for upgrading and enhancing the status of the secretarial assistants and, second, additional secretarial resources to Members, particularly for the area of research. Certainly my party's priorities are those areas and the resources which go with them, including the equipment and so on already mentioned. For instance, I would not like to see vast additional resources perhaps going on travel. I would prefer to see it going on the resourcing of the Deputies in terms of the function here.
In fairness to the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon and the Minister for Finance given the tight situation, I welcome the additional amount of money. It is not enough but it is welcome.
The Minister for Finance announced, on Second Stage, his intention to finalise the figure in discussions with the Ceann Comhairle. That is the only issue for him. How the figure will be spent will be entirely an issue for the commission.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 is out of order because it involves a charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 33 in the name of Deputy Burton. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are related to amendment No. 33, and amendment 35 is an alternative to amendment No. 34. Therefore we will discuss amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 1, to delete "an acting" and substitute "a deputy".
My party's objection here is to the words acting chairperson. Instead it should state "a deputy" chairperson. The Minister of State may be able to clarify that this is the subject of the subsequent amendments. Is that the case?
The acting chairperson is appointed as the stand-in for the chairperson, not on an ad hoc basis for each meeting but as one who, for a period, can step in for any meeting where the chairman must be absent or can convene one where the Chairman cannot. This is a practical arrangement so that the time of a meeting is not wasted by having to decide who will take the chair.
I suspect the Deputy has in mind, in the bureaucratic life and possibly in parties, more elevated connotations. I cannot see us having a hierarchy of commissioners. They are equal and the chairperson presides over them. I suspect that the Ceann Comhairle's absence will be rare and the acting chair will not be overburdened with his work as acting chairperson. The change sought by the Deputies does not have any great point to it and I am not inclined to accept it.
Amendment No. 35 in my name seeks to insert the words "following consultation with other members of the Commission". Before the chairperson, who is the Ceann Comhairle, nominates the acting chairman, I hope he or she will discuss it with the commission rather than come in and say, for example, that "Jimmy Murphy is to be the acting chairman any time I am not here." In the interests of consultation, of discussion, of working together as a group and of the cohesion of the group, it is important that the chairperson should discuss the matter in advance with the commission.
The Government not only wants to nominate the chair of the commission, but - once the commission is established - also wants to be able to nominate the deputy chairperson. The commission itself should elect its deputy chairperson. That is the normal way in which such matters are run. It is excessive Government dominance of a commission which will be acting in the interests of the Houses, not simply of the Government.
The acting chairperson will act in the interests of the commission. It is quite an independent body. If there is a ten-man commission and they are working closely together, I am sure that any of those decisions will be taken as a result of consultation. The Deputy is being a bit paranoid in stating that the Government wants to dominate this issue. Given the ratio of members involved, there may be a change of Government at some stage and a different configuration of parties.
That is not necessarily the case. I am not alleging domination; what I am saying is that in the interests of harmony and good procedure within any such committee, there should be a scenario whereby it would be discussed. Perhaps building that into the legislation is not the way to do it. Perhaps it is a little strong of us to suggest that. I would accept an assurance from the Minister of State that it is his understanding that the chairman would discuss it and reach a consensus with the commission prior to making the appointment, but it is good practice that the procedure we suggest would be adopted in a small committee such as this.
The Minister of State is, in effect, saying that the Ceann Comhairle will be the chairperson of the commission and will appoint the acting chairperson. That is taking central control. The Ceann Comhairle, certainly in this Dáil, is very much the Government person while having regard to the interests of Members. Everyone would acknowledge that.
I do not see any major difference. The business carries on regardless of who is in the Chair.
Both the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle have their responsibilities.
The point is that, in governing the Houses, which the commission will do, it would be appropriate that, if the Ceann Comhairle is to be a member of a party in Government, the acting chairperson should be a member of the Opposition. That would be the most desirable arrangement. As was pointed out regarding the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, once people are appointed to these jobs, they carry them out in a considered way. The Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle are responsible to the Government.
I would prefer to leave it to the commission.
The commission will not appoint the acting chairperson. The Ceann Comhairle will do so. That is the point.
That is the point.
The Ceann Comhairle will propose, following consultation with his nine fellow members, the appointment of an acting chairperson.
No, the Ceann Comhairle does not have to engage in consultation. What happens is that, as soon as possible after establishment day, the chairperson will make the appointment in writing. It does not mean he or she must inform the nine members of whom he or she is appointing. It is done in writing. That is the point.
I think the Minister of State agrees with what we say. It is just that he has a difficulty saying it and making it clear to us. In fairness to him and in the context of his previous incarnation, I imagine he agrees that one should discuss with people one's intentions in these matters.
I expect the Ceann Comhairle would do likewise. It is a small group of people who will work together. We should not dictate in the Bill how a chairperson should do his business.
We should dictate balance, equilibrium and equity between political parties. That is our job.
That the Minister of State has said what he expects the Ceann Comhairle to do is a sufficiently clear indication that he or she will be expected to discuss the matter with the commission before appointing an acting chairperson.
There is no suggestion in the Bill that the Ceann Comhairle is prohibited from consulting the committee.
What the Minister of State has said is a clear indication that he should. We will take that as being positive.
The legislation leaves it open to the chairperson to consult the commission. It does not exclude him from doing so.
It is not in the history or genes of Fianna Fáil.
We are a very broadly based party, so we must be doing something right.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I will withdraw amendment No. 34 in the context of the Minister's remarks. I note the intention of his comments.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
On the basis of commitments given by the Minister of State on the record I too withdraw my amendment No. 35. We look forward to the co-operation that will flow. We know it will be followed through. I thank the Minister of State.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 36, 38, 40, 45 and 49 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 23, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) a member of the staff of the Commission elected by such staff;”.
The purpose is to provide for representation of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It would be appropriate that they be represented on the commission. Many of them spend a great deal of their professional careers working in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and their input into how the Houses are run is extremely important.
It should be borne in mind that the Secretary General has an important role and is the boss of the staff. There is provision for worker directors on the board of State companies, and it is only right and fitting that the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas should have an elected member. I would be very disappointed if the Government, especially the Taoiseach, were not to accede to this reasonable request.
Sometimes, partly because of the protocol of the Houses, they can appear extremely formal. As a parliament, they must be very formal in many ways. That does not mean the staff, who are exceptionally courteous, reserved and extremely well mannered in their dealings with the public and Members, should not have a right to a voice on the commission. They may be serving the Secretary General as their boss, but their interests probably need to be separately represented.
A number of issues have already been raised, such as crèche facilities for staff and how the Houses are run. I have spoken before about how I would like early access to the Houses. Many Members would like limited access on Saturday morning. There are issues that are important to Members and staff. I hope the Minister of State sees fit to accept this reasonable amendment.
I support the concept of Deputy Burton's amendment, which is the same as that of my amendment, namely, the importance of membership of the commission for staff. There are hundreds of members of staff in the Houses and I have yet to encounter one who is not good at his or her job or has caused a difficulty for me. We are fortunate that we have excellent staff who give a service that is over and above the call of duty. When we leave at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. or later, we often see staff leaving at that time as well. They spend long hours in the Houses and are instrumental in what happens in them.
Decisions taken by the commission in future will impinge directly on the staff of the Houses. It is important that they be given a say in how the commission develops and how it intends to provide better services for Members. The provision of better services involves staff, the recruitment of additional staff, the different services they will provide and their different requirements. How can that be done without their being given an integral part in the happenings of Leinster House?
The Minister of State outlined that it is envisaged within the additional funding that there may be up to 200 additional staff. I do not know how many staff service the Houses but it must be almost 500. An additional 200 brings that figure up to 700. There are 226 Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and excluding Ministers that reduces the figure to 190. Is it right that a small committee drawn exclusively from that group should dictate what happens throughout the Houses? In the interests of good industrial relations, partnership and co-operation, we should include staff representation. The Minister should see fit to do so and accept the amendment.
We spoke earlier about including outside expert opinion in terms of amending legislation. I could see people looking for consultants' opinions on the methodology of other parliaments vis-à-vis the commission. We do not have to do any of that because we have inside expert opinion in the hundreds of people who work in these Houses.
This is not only about ensuring worker representation, which we must respect and adhere to, but about recognising the important insights and expertise those representatives would bring to the commission. We have a body of people working in this room and in the House who have an expertise and insight into how this entity works or, more often, how it does not work. It is imperative that knowledge is reflected in the work and discourse of the commission. I differ slightly from Deputy Burton in my view of the Secretary General. The argument that the Secretary General would represent the diverse levels of staff in this entity does not hold up at all. The Secretary General would not be in a position to represent the many diverse opinions and levels of expertise.
Deputy Burton seeks to replace the Secretary General with a member of staff elected by the staff. Deputies McGrath and Bruton have moved that on to two members of staff and I agree it should be at least two members of staff. In my amendments Nos. 40, 45 and 49 I seek the increase in the number of ordinary members from seven to nine. Those are members of the commission, not Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We need to have a clear understanding of what is proposed. Increasing this to nine and allowing for at least two worker representatives brings us to the most important point and my reason for commending my own amendments, though I accept there are a number of formulations that may be better. The Minister should accept the principle we are arguing for but my amendments are the only ones which affirm the position of the trade unions. That is a very important position for us to adopt. In amendment No. 45 I seek a new paragraph (c), where two of the ordinary members of the commission shall be nominated by the trade unions representing employees of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We should assert and affirm the role of the trade union movement here as the representatives of the various levels of employees in the House.
I understand the issue of worker representation has been brought to the partnership committee by the unions representing the workers. If the Minister intends to proceed against the wishes of the collective Opposition and the wishes of the employees of the Oireachtas by not accepting this, then that is serious. I hope he will be able to affirm this important amendment. I am disappointed it is not one of his amendments; that would have been the correct signal for him to send, rather than the Opposition being forced to put it down.
I commend the formula and the principle, as presented by the various spokespersons. I do not doubt the Minister will not disappoint.
For Deputy Ó Caoláin's benefit I will explain the Labour Party amendment. Our party, in seeking to have a staff member elected to the commission, seeks to do so in a format which leaves the structure of the commission intact. It deletes the Secretary General from the membership of the commission - not from attending - but from the voting membership of the commission. In a Department the Secretary General serves the Minister, whereas in this case the Secretary General is a member of the commission. The Secretary General should be in attendance at the commission as he is the chief executive, as it were, of the commission but we are suggesting a solution which should not only be acceptable to the Government but is easy to implement in the Bill as it stands. The place vacated by the Secretary General should be given to a member of the staff elected by the staff.
I have been involved in the trade union movement and in staff elections and the staff in Leinster House are significantly represented by trade unions. However, there are constitutional rights whether one is represented by a union or staff association. I would encourage everyone to join a union but the norm in bodies where staff are elected to boards is that those staff members are active union members. However, I am not sure we can confine the staff member to be so elected to persons nominated by unions. That is what happens in practice in all our semi-State bodies but it is for the workers in the institutions to elect members. Given so many members of staff in Leinster House are in trade unions it would be very surprising if it were not the case here. The purpose of the Labour Party amendment is to fulfil in a simple and elegant way the objective of having a staff member on the commission. We feel it is inappropriate for the Secretary General to be a voting member but that he should be in attendance and should be chief executive to the commission.
I thank Deputy Burton for the clarification. The position regarding the Secretary General's role is moot. However, I am not seeking substitution, I am seeking an extension of the commission by a further two positions, as are Deputies McGrath and Bruton. Trade union representation is crucial because people already working within these Houses are at the coalface of presenting the case on behalf of staff at several levels. That expertise and engagement to which they are exposed on a continuous basis is what gives them the additional edge and relevance in ensuring the commission addresses the needs, hopes and aspirations of staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Deputy Burton has acknowledged that the practice invariably will come down to trade union representation and filling the positions either by way of trade union members accepting their shared selection or non-trade union members endorsing the nominees of those represented by the trade union movement. The flaw with Deputy Burton's proposal is that the Labour Party is confining it to one position. Two positions is not an over-stated representation. It should not be confined to one person because if something needs to be addressed, one may need a proposer or seconder. Workers' representatives on the commission should have the comfort of support in any position they pre-determine to raise or press in the commission in the future. Two representatives is a requirement, therefore, I commend the proposal to move from seven to nine.
The purpose of the Labour Party amendment is to provide for an elected member of the staff. Deputy Ó Caoláin's amendment proposes that members of staff should be nominated to the commission by trade unions. A number of trade unions represent staff in this House. This has been done very successfully in semi-State bodies, colleges, universities and so on whereby there is an election among staff to select a staff representative. Normally that person is supported by the leading trade union or trade unions. Under Deputy Ó Caoláin's proposal, would some of the unions have representation or does he envisage the unions sitting down——
The word "jointly" has been missed.
The Deputy used the word "nominated" but he must allow the workers to have a vote on who their nominee will be.
I have no doubt that is the way the trade union movement exercises its business.
The point has been well made on both sides.
It seems in amendment No. 45 there is a serious attempt to steal the clothes of the Labour Party by Sinn Féin becoming the advocates of the trade union movement. I am not sure whether we should debate that issue for long at this committee. I am sure there are other platforms where both parties can debate the matter.
Given the size of the British Parliament, there are six members on the House of Commons Commission. I was not a Member of this House when discussions took place three years ago on the setting up of the commission but I believe the consensus was that a ten member commission would be a correct balance. During earlier discussions concern was expressed about representation. If one decides to take off someone in order to appoint a staff representative, I would not like to go into the Seanad to relay that message.
The philosophy of the Bill was that the governance of the Houses should rest with the elected Members of the Houses. I have great confidence in the new commission that it will have sufficient expertise to do that business. If there is need to bring in outside experts, I am sure the commission will do so by way of a consultant's report or whatever in order to gain the benefit of that extra experience. The commission will consist of four Dáil representatives, three Seanad representatives, the Ceann Comhairle and the Clerk of the Dáil as the chief executive. There was never a suggestion that the Clerk of the Dáil would be the workers' representative. Certainly that suggestion did not come from this side of the House. The Minister's nominee will be a member of the committee. In terms of the Minister's responsibility on the pay element, and previous responsibilities, it is important that he should have a representative who can report back to him in terms of his overall responsibility and in terms of the extra €40 million he is providing over the three year period.
There is no other way to respond other than to express serious disappointment that the Minister of State does not accept the principle of worker representation on the commission. Leaving aside the cut and thrust of the detail between the Labour Party and Sinn Féin as to the formula to be employed, we agree on the principle.
On the question of election——
I have never heard the Labour Party slight the trade union movement on the basis that it was not democratic.
No, we are seeking an election——
That is the first time I have heard that said.
No.
I have no doubt that the trade union movement will conduct its own election procedure. The word "jointly" means they would do it together.
I will leave aside all that cut and thrust with Deputy Burton and address the Minister of State who deserves our focus and angst at this point. He refuses to accept that the commission will have the benefit of and be enhanced by worker representation. I am incredulous of his stance because it is an outrageous position to adopt. I have no doubt the arguments have not just been presented by the collective opposition here this afternoon but have already been represented by the trade union representatives through the partnership commission. He is bound to be familiar with all of that detail. The expressed wish of the work force, staff at all levels and all grades within the Houses of the Oireachtas is that they should have their position respected, acknowledged and catered to on the commission. I make a final appeal to the Minister of State to revisit the position he has adopted, leaving aside his mirth at having different formulas for moving that project forward. I am sure it is not beyond his gift to come with a further alternative that will accommodate the principle on which we as an opposition collectively agree.
I appeal to him to revisit the issue in advance of Report Stage because it is one of the fundamental deficiencies of what he is presenting. Until such time as other than just the elected Members are viewed as almost having a monopoly on the wisdom of how this campus operates, we will always have deficient responses. The commission will get off to a deficient start because it will exclude the expertise, knowledge and undoubted wish of a significant section of the work force to ensure its success in the future. I strongly reject the Minister of State's position and I will press the amendments.
It is important that the appointment of worker directors to the commission should be through election by staff members, who in State organisations will normally be members of trade unions. Bearing in mind the constitutional right of choice to join a trade union or not, it is important that the staff members who serve on the commission are elected by their fellow workers and not simply nominated, however worthy the trade union body may be. There are quite a number of different public service trade unions representing staff in the House. The Labour Party is concerned that all of its members, whether they represent the manual, clerical or senior administrative grades, should have the right to take part in an election for a worker member of the commission. That system has served us well in State bodies. If Sinn Féin has decided that the election of worker directors, as happens in our State bodies, colleges and universities, should be replaced by direct nomination by the trade union, that is fine for Sinn Féin. However, the Labour Party is in favour of workers being able to elect worker members and worker directors, through election by all the workers, not just the people at the top of the tree in the organisation. This important principle particularly refers to manual and general operative staff in jobs, public companies and services.
I accept that Deputy Ó Caoláin wants more than one but in discussing the amendments I took the position that the number of members has been broadly agreed. I do not see why the Secretary General has to be a voting member of the commission. That place could be given to a worker member to be elected by the workers in Dáil Éireann. However, it is fine by me if people wish to increase the number although I do not have a particular problem with it.
I am disappointed the Minister does not see fit to include representatives of the staff of this House on the commission. It is a shame the Minister cannot accommodate the huge number of staff involved and because of that we will press the amendment to a vote.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Burton, Joan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Níl
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- Parlon, Tom.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(e) 2 members representative of the non-elective staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas,”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Burton, Joan.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Keogh, Paul.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Níl
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- Parlon, Tom.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 7, subsection (1)(e), lines 26, to delete “7” and substitute“9”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Burton, Joan.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Keogh, Paul.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Níl
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- Parlon, Tom.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 7, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Secretary General may attend and be heard at meetings of the Commission but is not a member thereof.".
This amendment is to provide that the Secretary General may attend the meetings but as in the case of a Secretary General of a Department where a Minister has the primary role and the Secretary General is the chief executive. We regard the Secretary General as the chief executive of the commission and it is not appropriate that the holder would have a voting role on the commission.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Burton, Joan.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Keogh, Paul.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Níl
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- Parlon, Tom.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 7, subsection (3)(a), line 32, after “House” to insert “and shall be chosen in such a way as to be broadly representative of the different political interests represented in the House”.
What we are suggesting is that, in choosing the Members to represent the Dáil and Seanad, it should be broadly representative of the groupings within the respective Houses. There should be an overall mix of representation, across the board - that is what we are trying to ensure.
We will suspend for a moment, pending the return of the Department officials who had left the room while we were voting. Does the Minister of State wish to respond at this stage?
Not just yet.
We normally wait for the officials to return, following a vote.
The officials should not have to leave the room. When we are in public session, they are entitled to be present, albeit in the public gallery. They do not have to leave the room - or even to leave their positions, if they wish.
They may be quite relieved to leave the room for a while.
Sitting suspended at 5.11 p.m. until 5.12 p.m.
We resume on amendment No. 43 to section 8. As amendment No. 44 is related, it is being discussed together with No. 43, by agreement.
The selection of the seven ordinary members of the commission is a matter for each House. There are various ways in which this can be done and it will be a matter for each House to decide what method to adopt. The Dáil will appoint four of its Members and the Seanad will appoint three Members from that House. As it is a matter for the Houses to decide how their representatives will be chosen, I cannot accept the amendment.
This is another difficulty in relation to the new configuration in the Houses since the general election of May 2002. I understand the proposal is to accommodate four Deputies and three Members of the Seanad. My sense of that is that it genuflects to and perpetuates the three party system which has applied in this jurisdiction for decades, involving Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. It does not recognise that there are a number of political parties now represented in the Dáil. The numbers provided in the Bill will not accommodate access for all of the various strands of opinion now represented in the Dáil. Clearly, there is concern among the smaller parties - Sinn Féin, the Green Party, the Socialist Party and the significant number of Independents who are currently Members of the Dáil - as to the methodology to be used in determining the make-up of the Dáil representation on the commission. We are very anxious to have this spelled out. We are very concerned that there will clearly be a failure to reflect on the new configuration in the Houses since last year's elections. I am seeking a clear outline of what is intended. Obviously, the six or seven political parties currently represented in the Dáil will not go into four. This is another reason, aside from the principle of worker representation, that the restrictive numbers will exclude opinion which would wish to be heard at such an important body.
Has the Minister of State anything further to add?
If Deputy Ó Caoláin had his way, there would be representation of all of the workers, all political parties and, probably, all of the Independents, resulting in a totally unworkable commission. I have the highest faith in both Houses to come forward with representatives who will represent the respective views. That is a sensible arrangement - such is democracy. If it is suggested that an Independent Member has not got trust in a representative from the House, we have a problem. It will be a matter for individuals to ensure that, if the Dáil is represented by four people, a representative view will go forward to the commission. I do not know whether my party will be directly represented among the select few, any more than Deputy Ó Caoláin's party. However, if not, I expect we will set about ensuring that our views will be discussed and taken on board. Having every Tom, Dick and Harry represented would result in an unworkable situation. We have to face up to a realistic approach. A ten member commission is very workable.
I hope Deputies Tom, Dick and Harry, as elected representatives of the electorate, would be acknowledged as having every right to have their position reflected on the commission. As the Independents have already demonstrated, they have moulded themselves into quite a cohesive group within the Chamber and have overcome their various differences and strands in order to present a technical unity, in terms of the workings of the House. I am sure it will present no obstacle for them in terms of nominating somebody for the commission. With all respect to the Minister of State, now that his party is marginally bigger and better placed than some of the other smaller parties in the House, he is still a member of a smaller party. I would love to see him making the same arguments in Opposition as he is prepared to make in support of Fianna Fáil in Government currently.
I have no doubt that if Deputy Parlon was sitting in Opposition, he would not give his present responses but would assert the position and right of the Progressive Democrats to have its case put. It is trite of him to reply as he has done. It is unsatisfactory that there is, as yet, no indication of the methodology of selection in relation to the four places signposted and which, clearly, will be the outcome of all of this. This matter needs to be addressed. If it is the case that representation will be held to four and that political parties and the group of Independents will not have representation in the Dáil, there must be identified avenues and means of having views presented and arguments put. As the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has already said, his party will find its own way - as it already has. It is in a coalition with Fianna Fáil and will have the ear of that party, as is clearly the case. In fact I suggest the Progressive Democrats has both ears of Fianna Fáil at this stage. We wish to ensure that our views are also heard.
The Constitution does not allow anybody to dictate to the Houses as to how Members should vote or appoint representatives. That is very much a matter for each House.
I support the position outlined by the Minister of State. Whether one is in a small party or a big party, common sense indicates that the Government of the day will regulate the business of the Houses of the Oireachtas, as is its prerogative. That is quite clear from the Bill. It is the privilege of the Opposition to put down amendments and I admire their input of time and effort in that regard. What is being done is not practical. That is how the system works and I fully support the Minister's stand. It is not fair to talk about small or big parts; he has a job to do and is doing it well. I compliment him on his success to date.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 7, subsection (3), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(c) 2 of the ordinary members of the Commission shall be nominated jointly by the trade unions representing employees of the Houses of the Oireachtas.”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Nil, 7.
Tá
- Burton, Joan.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Keogh, Paul.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Níl
- Dempsey, Tony
- Finneran, Michael
- Fleming, Sean
- Lenihan, Conor
- Nolan, M. J.
- O’Keeffe, Ned
- Parlon, Tom
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 7, subsection (4), line 38, after "(3)” to insert “and the Minister’s representative”.
The Minister for Finance intends that the commission will be established on 1 January 2004 and is to assume its financial management functions with effect from that date. The date given means that the Bill under the proposed amendment would come into force during a recess and the commission will have to take on its responsibilities immediately. The Minister thinks it should be selected well in advance of the new year. In the interim, the members will have an opportunity to equip themselves for their work as commissioners and, I hope, will have worked out their approach to it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 7, subsection (4), lines 39 and 40, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) subject to paragraph (b), the first such appointments shall be made after the passing of this Act,
(b) no appointment referred to at paragraph (a) shall take effect until the establishment day,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 8, before line 1, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) Section 3 of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Act 1998 (as amended by section 39 of the Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001 is amended-
(a) in subsection 1) (a) (ix by deleting ’or’, and
(b) by inserting the following words and subparagraphs after subsection (1)(a)(ix
'or
(x) the Minister's representative on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, or
(xi) ordinary members of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission.',
and
(c) by inserting in subsection (3), the following definition after the definition of ’Assistant Party Whip in Dáil Éireann’:
' "Minister's representative" has the same meaning as it has in section 8(1)(d) of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2003 and does not mean a person appointed to that Commission under section 9(2) of that Act;’,
and
(d) by inserting in subsection (3), the following definition after the definition of ’Opposition Whip in Dáil Éireann’:
' "ordinary members of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission" means persons duly appointed to that Commission under section 8(3) of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2003;’.”.
The Bill, as published, does not provide for the payment of an allowance to the seven ordinary members of the commission. The Minister considers that there would be a risk of suitable members not putting themselves forward as commissioners if these positions did not attract some form of allowance. One of the amendments makes this possible by listing the ordinary members and the Minister's representative among the positions in the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Act 1998, as amended by section 39 of the Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Officers and Oireachtas Members (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001. It is not his intention that any payment should be made before 1 January 2004.
This is a very technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 8, subsection (9), line 23, after "Commission" to insert "(other than an ordinary member nominated under subsection (3)(c))”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
As it is 5.30 p.m., I propose to adjourn the committee for half an hour. However, if members wish, we may proceed. Most of the serious amendments have been dealt with.
We are making good progress. I do not think there will be much contention on the remaining amendments. If it suits the Minister and his officials, we might try to finish. About 20 minutes should finish it.
We will continue.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 24 to 26, to delete all words from and including "a" in line 24 down to and including "Éireann" in line 26 and substitute "Chairman of Dáil Éireann is elected".
This is a technical amendment. The original version of this section referred to the Ceann Comhairle being "appointed" by the Dáil, but the Constitution refers to him or her being "elected". This amendment has been brought forward to keep this Bill strictly in line with the Constitution.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 9, subsection (2)(b), lines 32 and 33, to delete “dissolution of that House” and substitute “general election for that House after the dissolution referred to in paragraph (a)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 52 cannot be moved because it is an alternative to amendment No. 51 and has already been discussed with amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 52 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 53 has been tabled by the Minister for Finance and Deputy Burton.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 10, subsection (1)(a), line 6, to delete “5” and substitute “4”.
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendment No. 54 has been tabled by the Minister for Finance and Deputy Burton.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 10, subsection (3)(a), line 37, to delete “to”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 12, subsection (5)(a), line 24, to delete “the” where it firstly occurs and substitute “additional”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 56, in the name of Deputies Paul McGrath and Richard Bruton, is out of order because it involves a charge on the Exchequer. I have sent a letter to that effect to the Deputies.
Amendment No. 56 not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 57 to 59, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 12, subsection (4), lines 48 to 51, to delete all words from and including "Dáil" in line 48 down to and including "General" in line 51 and substitute "either or both Houses of the Oireachtas".
This amendment deals, essentially, with the powers and accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas of the Secretary General. He or she is accountable, in effect, only to the Committee of Public Accounts and only in relation to finance matters. I would like the Minister to consider this matter before Report Stage, although I admit it is not an easy problem to resolve. The Secretary General will act as the chief executive of the new commission and of the House. How will the House have access to the Secretary General to question him? This Bill provides that the Secretary General will be questioned only through the PAC.
The Secretary General is required, under the Public Service Management Act, to ensure that the resources of an office are used in an appropriate manner, in accordance with the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993. The Secretary General will be the commission's accounting officer and will, therefore, be responsible for maintaining and commenting on the commission's accounts. While the proposed commission will not operate through the normal annual Vote mechanism, it will not be immune to or exempt from best accounting practice. It will have to keep its accounts in an appropriate manner and will be subject to audit from the Comptroller and Auditor General, as is customary for offices funded by the Exchequer.
Section 13(1) provides that "the Commission shall prepare and publish a statement of estimates" on an annual basis. The Estimates will be presented to the Dáil by a member of the commission or a Member of the Dáil nominated by the commission and will be noted by the Dáil by way of motion. It would be good business practice, in the interests of openness and transparency, for the commission's accounts to be audited. I cannot accept Deputy Burton's amendment for that reason.
I know this is technically an extremely difficult area, as the commission relates to the House itself and the Clerk is the Secretary General of the commission. The point of my amendment is that there should be a better method of accountability. Deputy Ó Caoláin has said he does not anticipate that all parties will be represented on the commission. The Technical Group, which consists of many parties, probably has more power than parties which are bigger than it. Deputy Ó Caoláin has made a fair point in the context of the years to come. How can parties or individuals who are not represented on the commission effect questioning?
The rules in relation to the Secretary General as accounting officer are the standard ones, but there are concerns about his or her accountability. Most Secretaries General are accountable to an Oireachtas committee, but to whom is this Secretary General accountable? I do not have a direct or easy answer for the Minister of State, but perhaps this issue can be addressed on Report Stage.
The argument made by Deputy Ó Caoláin about smaller parties may be important in the future, particularly as the Government, through its voting majority, balances the membership of the commission. I am not saying that I have an easy or immediate answer, but I think this issue should be addressed. A Department's Vote is normally discussed by the relevant committee and the Secretary General examines the Vote. Under this Bill, the commission will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts only. There is at least one representative of the Technical Group on the Public Account Committee, but he is a representative of a party that has just one Member in the House.
The Secretary General will have to present the commission's accounts to the Dáil. I expect that Independent Members will have an opportunity——
The Committee of Public Accounts does not allow a Deputy who is not a member of it to attend one of its meetings. It is a unique committee in that sense - it has a special status under the Constitution.
The Secretary General will have to prepare a strategy statement and there will be an opportunity to have a debate at that point.
Other committees, such as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Committee on Members' Interests, are representative of members' interests. Perhaps the Minister of State will consider, on Report Stage, providing a mechanism to deal with this. I do not imagine that such a mechanism would be required very often, but there is a potential for a lack of accountability and the exclusion of smaller parties if it is not put in place.
If a matter of concern arises, the House can debate it at any time.
The Secretary General is answerable to the commission. Any party or grouping, including the Technical Group, will have a representative of some sort on the commission. Concerns could be raised in that fashion through the commission. The Secretary General will always be answerable to the commission and the matter is covered in that way.
From the tenor of the Minister's contributions today, I understand that the members of the commission will be representative of the parties in the Houses, including the Opposition. While I accept the membership of the commission will be elected by the Oireachtas, it is already stacked heavily in favour of the Government.
I am not pre-empting the manner in which the Dáil or Seanad will appoint its nominees.
That is not a satisfactory answer. It may mean a Government with the support of Members may present the complete membership of the commission to the Houses for election in one division. I am trying to provide for something wider. I do not suggest the Government will do that. I presume the Taoiseach and the Chief Whip will present a voting structure to the Houses which is reflective of their memberships. Perhaps on Report Stage the Minister of State will confirm if that is the Government's intention.
I empathise with the points the Deputy makes regarding representation. It is not for me at this stage to indicate how it will happen.
As we spent some time addressing this matter earlier, I did not intend to come back in, but I wish to join Deputy Burton in questioning the Minister of State. The Minister of State says he cannot answer our questions now, but he has noted our concerns. I ask that in advance of Report Stage he should establish the methodology proposed to allow Members to come to that debate informed. It is due to take place next week, which does not give us much time. The matter must be addressed with some urgency. We need to have clarity before proceeding to Report Stage and I hope the Minister of State will oblige. The matter should not be outlined on Report Stage. We require advice of what is proposed.
The House has all sorts of ways of making up its mind. The Whips have substantial——
The Whip method might be satisfactory as all of the groups, including the Technical Group, are represented.
There are several ways for the Houses to make decisions. It is not appropriate to dictate how that happens in this Bill.
We are dealing with section 14 but some of the concerns being raised by Deputies were addressed in section 13 which refers to the annual Estimate of ongoing expenditure. I note section 13 provides that the commission shall prepare and publish a statement of Estimates on an annual basis. Those Estimates will be presented to the Dáil by a member of the commission or by a Member of the Dáil nominated by the commission and shall be noted in the Dáil by way of a motion. We skipped that section without discussion, but it perhaps contains some of the answers. I note what everybody has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 61 is an alternative to amendment No. 60 and amendment No. 62 is related. The amendments may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 13, lines 21 to 24, to delete subsection (1).
My party is of the view that the same person should not hold the office of Clerk of the Dáil and Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Clerk of the Dáil is a very busy person who works closely with the Ceann Comhairle to order the business of the House. We feel the chief executive should be more concerned with the running of the Houses, in which case it would be better to separate the functions.
I can see where the Deputy's amendment is coming from. Her party takes the view that there are two jobs and should therefore be two job holders. I admit that there is a logic to the point. The reason for doing things differently in the Bill is that there is always scope for conflict between the commission and the Houses at an administrative or bureaucratic level rather than at a political level. That would be hard to avoid if there were two civil servant bosses. Making the Clerk of the Dáil the top servant of the Houses helps to keep things smooth between both sides. It has been the tradition since the foundation of the State that the Clerk of the Dáil doubles up as the head of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Given that tradition, implementing Deputy Burton's desired scenario might lead to delay and to some reluctance to accept or carry out the instructions of the head of the commission secretariat unquestioningly. In the Government's view this option is unlikely to streamline the working operations of the Civil Service machine in the office. We do not recommend the amendment.
I can see the points of view of both Deputy Burton and the Minister of State in terms of the possible conflict of interest and conflict of roles. This will be a very onerous and full-time job. It will take somebody of quality to perform it. We may need to reorganise the existing posts within the Oireachtas. The position of Assistant Clerk of the Dáil might need to be bolstered to give the post holder more responsibility. The Secretary General could technically be head, but with a reorganised office.
How will grades and salaries be changed? Will sanction have to be sought from the Minister for Finance? In terms of salaries and extra responsibilities, will the position of Clerk of the Dáil be upgraded to a secretary generalship equal to that of any of the Departments with a commensurate salary? Is that yet to be worked out and negotiated? Will additional legislation be required in the long-term to appoint a new Clerk of the Dáil as the position will no longer exist? If so, might it not be as well to include such amending legislation in this Bill?
I support this amendment. According to the argument presented, it is not only the case that onerous demands may be placed on both positions that are at issue. There is an argument to be made for separating the two jobs. It is difficult for us to assume that the Secretary General role is a new and full-time role in itself without being presented with an outline of the terms and conditions of the position and its responsibilities. It is very difficult to envisage that and orient our thinking around the future without a clear outline of what the role would entail. It would be beneficial if that could be fleshed out, allowing Members a very clear definition of the role and responsibilities of the person appointed.
It might also be helpful, given that we are talking about the role of the Clerk of the Dáil, as a courtesy to the present incumbent, to ask his opinion. We are not merely discussing the Secretary General of the commission, a position not yet established, but one which is filled, with someone performing that role and function. As a courtesy to the Clerk of the Dáil, his input should also be secured as a help to determine the right answer.
I would certainly like to hear Deputy Burton say a little more about the importance of separating the two roles. Instead of leaving it only as if it were to do with the separate and onerous demands of the two positions, we need that additional information and the opinion of the Clerk of the Dáil to inform us. There is more to the argument than that, and perhaps DeputyBurton might elaborate.
Several references have been made to the onerous demands of the two jobs. However, the role of the Clerk of the Dáil would to a large extent be taken over by the role of the Secretary General of the commission. There is not much point in having a commission set up to run the two Houses if the old regime still exists. Clearly, one could suggest that the title of Clerk of the Dáil should cease to exist, but the Clerk himself has pointed out that eliminating his present position would cause difficulties, since the Dáil has the right to regulate its own affairs outside the remit of the commission. What is being suggested - and is supported by the Ceann Comhairle - is that the two titles should be held simultaneously but filled by one person. That is a sensible way forward, and we are not currently inclined to move from that position.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 13, subsection (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete "office of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann is, on and after the establishment day, known as the office of" and substitute "person who for the time being holds the office of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann shall, on and after the establishment day become and may also be referred to as".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 13, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The same person shall not hold the offices of Clerk of the Dáil and Secretary General of the Commission.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 13, lines 27 to 34, to delete subsections (3) and (4).
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question proposed, "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the remuneration of the Clerk of the Dáil be upgraded to Secretary General level?
I understand that the Clerk of the Dáil has been at the same grade and received the same remuneration as a Secretary General for the last 20 years or perhaps even longer.
Why is the Minister for Finance deleting two of the functions of the Secretary General in subsections 15(3) and 15(4)? The Bill states:
Except as otherwise directed by the Commission, the Secretary General manages and controls generally the staff, administration and business of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and performs such other functions as may be conferred on him or her by this or any enactment or by the Commission.
That means that the person must do as the commission ordered, but this is to be deleted. The Bill also states:
The Secretary General is responsible to the Commission for the performance of his or her functions and the implementation of the policies of the Commission.
That would seem normal. Why are those two subsections to be deleted?
It is covered in the new section 16, which sets out the functions of the Secretary General.
It is in the next amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 64 in the name of the Minister has already been discussed with section 8.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 13, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
"(1) Subject to determination of matters of policy by the Commission and except as otherwise directed by the Commission or provided by or under any other Act, the Secretary General of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have the authority, responsibility and accountability for carrying out the following duties in respect of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas:
(a) managing the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, implementing and monitoring Commission policies appropriate to the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and delivering outputs as determined with the Commission,
(b) preparing, with a view to giving effect to subsection (6), an outline of how specific elements of the responsibilities described in paragraphs (c) to (g) are to be assigned so as to ensure that the functions performed on behalf of the Commission are performed by a member of the staff of the Commission of an appropriate grade or rank,
(c) providing advice to the Commission with respect to any matter within, affecting or connected with, the responsibilities of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas giving rise to material expenditure chargeable to its accounts,
(d) ensuring that appropriate arrangements are put into place that will facilitate an effective response to matters that pertain to both the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas and other branches of the public service,
(e) ensuring that the resources of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas are used in a manner that is in accordance with the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 with a view to enabling the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 19(1) of that Act to be appropriately addressed by the Secretary General,
(f) examining and developing means that will improve the provision by the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas of cost effective services,
(g) subject to the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956, and the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956, managing all matters pertaining to appointments, performance, discipline and dismissals of staff below the grade of Principal (Higher), or its equivalent in the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas,
(h) assigning the responsibility for performance of the functions for which the Secretary General is responsible to members of the staff of the Commission of an appropriate grade or rank, including the conditions pertaining to such assignments, in order to ensure coherence of policy across the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and ensuring that, where appropriate, the responsibility for the performance of those functions is further assigned to other members of the staff of the Commission of an appropriate grade or rank,
(i) providing progress reports on the implementation of the strategic plan, as defined in subsection (4)(b), annually to the Commission.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as preventing or limiting the Secretary General from carrying out, on behalf of the Commission, any other function of the Commission.
(3) The Secretary General shall be accountable to the Commission in carrying out the duties or functions referred to in subsection (1).
(4) (a) As soon as practicable after the establishment day, and after that within 6 months before each third anniversary of the establishment day or such other times as the Commission may direct, the Secretary General shall prepare and submit to the Commission, for approval with or without amendment by the Commission, a strategic plan for the following 3 year period.
(b) For the purposes of this section, strategic plan means a plan that shall-
(i) comprise the key objectives, outputs and related strategies including the use of resources of the Commission taking due account of relevant directions issued by the Government to Government Departments and Offices,
(ii) be prepared in a form and manner in accordance with any directions issued from time to time by the Commission, and
(iii) have regard to the need to make efficient use of the resources of the Commission.
(c) As soon as practicable after the strategic plan has been approved, the Commission shall cause a copy of it to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
(d) The Freedom of Information Act 1997 shall not apply to a record containing the following during the period of 5 years immediately following its creation:
(i) a strategic plan that has not been approved under paragraph (a),
(ii) a preliminary or other draft of the whole or part of the material contained in a strategic plan,
(iii) the unamended version of a strategic plan that is approved under paragraph (a) with amendment, or
(iv) a direction under subsection (5) in connection with the obligations of the Secretary General under subsection (4)(a) and (b).
(5) Subject to any other Act, but notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Commission may give directions to the Secretary General, in writing, in connection with the obligations of the Secretary General under subsections (1) to (4) other than subsection (1)(g).
(6) (a) The assignment of the responsibility for the performance of functions of the Secretary General under this section to members of the staff of the Commission of an appropriate grade or rank, shall include a requirement, where deemed appropriate to the assignment, that the member of the staff of the Commission to whom the assignment is made shall-
(i) provide policy advice in relation to the subject matter of the assignment and related matters,
(ii) achieve the outputs specified in the assignment,
(iii) assume responsibility for the statutory schemes or programmes specified in the assignment,
(iv) assume responsibility for the delivery of quality services in respect of the area of the assignment,
(v) ensure that the expenditure made in respect of the area of the assignment accords with the purpose for which the expenditure was chargeable to the accounts of the Commission and that value for money was obtained, and
(vi) perform, on behalf of the Secretary General, functions in respect of appointments, performance and discipline of personnel in the area of the assignment, other than dismissals, that are the responsibility of the Secretary General under subsection (1)(g).
(b) A member of staff of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas to whom the responsibility for the performance of functions has been assigned shall be accountable for the performance of those functions to the Secretary General and to such other officers (if any) as may be specified under the assignment.
(7) The Secretary General, or any other member of staff of the Commission who is designated for the purposes of this section by the Secretary General, and to whom the relevant responsibility for the performance of functions has been assigned, and, when requested to do so in writing by an Oireachtas Committee authorised in that behalf to make the request in connection with the subject-matter before that committee, shall appear before the committee in relation to any strategic plan that has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas under subsection (4)(c).”.
I have already made detailed comments and do not wish to go back over them. However, I would like to say——
We must put the amendment and then allow discussion on the section. We cannot discuss the amendment, for we have already done so.
Does the Minister have an overall note which he might make available to the members of the commission about the purpose of the amendment regarding section 16? It is very long and detailed. Normally we would get the details in the explanatory memorandum. For the purpose of briefing colleagues, members of the committee would find it useful to get a briefing note. It is very long and detailed, and we saw it for the first time today.
We circulated that note this morning with section 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendment No. 65 is in the name of the Minister and Deputy Burton.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 14, subsection (1), lines 18 and 19, to delete "Houses of the Oireachtas Commission" and substitute "Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 18, paragraph 6, line 26, after "functions" to insert "except where they consist of expenses paid by the Commission on behalf of its members and staff which have been recouped by it from them".
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 3, line 6, after "AS" to insert "CHOIMISIÚIN THITHE AN OIREACHTAIS OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE".
Ba mhaith le Paírti an Lucht Oibre go mbeadh leagan Gaeilge ar fáil maidir le teideal an Bhille.
Aontaím leis an leasú atá molta ag an dTeachta Burton.
The Deputies have asked for the Title to be amended to include the Irish version of the commission. Section 3 (2) makes this provision and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. While we are not inclined to accept this amendment we will be guided by the convention on this area.
When this was discussed on a previous occasion the Minister for Finance gave an undertaking to accept it. Section 1 states: "This Act may be cited as the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2002." That is rather different from the reference in section 3 that there shall stand established a body to be known as Coimisiún Thithe an Oireachtais.
Tá difríocht mór idir é sin agus an cheann eile.
The Irish version is very clear on the first page of the Bill. It appears first. Whatever is the convention will be followed. As far as we are concerned we are complying with that.
The Minister for Finance gave an undertaking. The Official Languages Bill is going through the Houses and further confirms this approach. We are confusing two different things. Section 1 refers to the Title and it states: "This Act may be cited as the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2002." We know what the leagan Gaeilge is from the back of the Bill but it should be included in the citation of the Title. The Minister of State's reference is to the body of the Bill.
I am referring to the top of the first page of the Bill.
No, that is the section citing the Act. We would like the leagan Gaeilge included in the citation.
I support Deputy Burton's case. I understand that Bille na dTeangacha Oifigiúla is the correct Title of the Official Languages Bill. There is, unquestionably, an imperative to recognise the Irish language Title in legislation. On several previous occasions we addressed the extraordinary situation where we did not have the Irish language texts of legislation going back over many years. The translation work is ever so slowly making its way forward.
To fail to recognise the official Title in the first language is a deficiency in the Bill. As Deputy Burton's amendment indicates, it is Choimisiún Thithe an Oireachtais or, in the English language, the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill. I commend the amendment. The Minister should come back on Report Stage and accept this change.
I do not accept that. I cannot understand this point. Clearly, the Irish Title is on the front of the Bill and it is referred to in section 3(2). It is fine if we want to create more paperwork, but I do not see any sense in the amendment.
This creates some six extra words. I want to give parity to the Irish language in the context that Deputy Ó Caoláin has outlined. On previous occasions the Minister for Finance gladly accepted similar amendments from the Labour Party and, in fact, thanked us for putting them forward. Perhaps the Minister of State would undertake to reflect on this before it comes to Report Stage.
If the Government is definitely not accepting it I will move to have a vote. However, if the Minister of State is prepared to indicate that he will consider the matter and come back to us on Report Stage I will withdraw it. The Minister for Finance clearly indicated to me on a number of occasions that he is more than happy to accept the Labour Party's position in regard to the use of the Irish language in the Title and citation of a Bill.
If it is the norm and the convention by other Ministers that we repeat this particular aspect, I do not have a problem with it, and I do not expect the Minister to have one. We can reflect on it but, personally, I do not see the need for it.
The Minister of State has indicated that he will reflect on it. Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
It is only accepted on the basis that the Minister of State has undertaken to have that matter addressed between now and Report Stage. Otherwise, as Deputy Burton said, it will be challenged.
I will not oppose it at this stage.
The Minister of State said he will reflect on it between now and Report Stage. It can be discussed on Report Stage. If the Deputy wishes she can re-enter the amendment then.
I intend to table my amendment again on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending today's session.